Index of online articles and materials

Print-friendly PDF format

TEACHING COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION

STRATEGIES
An action research project with Greek teenagers at intermediate
level
Copyright 1992-2002 Costas Gabrielatos
This is the report of an action research project on oral communication and
interaction strategies I conducted in February and March 1992 in partial
fulfilment of the RSA/Cambridge Diploma for Overseas Teachers of English.
The report was submitted in April 1992. In this version (February 2002), I have
made some changes in wording, reference conventions and the numbering of
sections. I have also incorporated some footnotes in the text and combined
some extremely short sub-sections. Unfortunately, the transcripts of activities
and feedback discussions, as well as the tasksheets and handouts are not yet
available in electronic form, as they were either hand-written, or typed on a
typewriter.
Also
published
in
Developing
Teachers
http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/commstr1_costas.htm,
May 2002.

INTRODUCTION
The choice of this project was largely determined by the fact that very little attention had been
given to fluency and student interaction during the previous years of tuition of the group of
students concerned. As a result, students had developed inhibitions towards using the target
language which had a negative impact on their oral performance. It would, therefore, be an
opportunity and a challenge for me to examine the effectiveness of certain activities and
techniques in helping students shed their inhibitions and become more fluent communicators.

1. OUTLINE
1.1. Aims

To help students become more confident and fluent communicators and encourage risktaking.
To make students aware of certain communication strategies (Bygate 1987: Ch. 5; Ellis 1985:
180-188), notably achievement strategies (paraphrase and co-operative strategies) (Bygate
1987: 44-46, Ellis 1985: 184-185) and their importance in facilitating oral production, as well
as to provide the students with opportunities to use them consciously.
To make students aware of the reciprocal nature of oral interaction and certain features of
interaction routines (Bygate 1987: 34-35).
To elicit and present expressions through which the above strategies and features can be
realised.
To make students aware of the benefits of assuming joint responsibility for the negotiation of
meaning.

To provide opportunities for free practice in certain routine types of interaction, notably
informal discussion and informal planning and decision making (see Bygate 1987: 35).

1.2. Procedure
Lesson 1 dealt with the strategy of circumlocution.
Lesson 2 dealt with the following aspects of oral interaction: signalling (lack of) understanding /
interest / participation through asking for repetition / clarification / elaboration / confirmation.
Lesson 3 dealt with time gaining devices, showing interest and participation through
expressing and asking for opinions and ways of signposting a discussion.
Lesson 4 dealt with ways of expressing agreement / disagreement (and their level of
formality).
Lesson 5 was a consolidation and awareness-raising lesson.
Lesson 6 focused on helping students to become aware of strategies they (do not) use, and
provided more opportunities for practising the strategy of circumlocution.

2. THE RELEVANT THEORY

2.1. Characteristics of Spoken Language
Apart from instances when listeners are unable or not expected to respond overtly (e.g. news
broadcasts, lectures) speakers have to take the listeners feedback into consideration, for
instance they will have to rephrase their message or answer to questions. Bygate (1987: 34-35)
mentions features of interaction routines involving feedback. The ones relevant to the aims of this
project are: asking the other person for information or language that he or she has forgotten,
asking the other persons opinion, responding to requests for clarification from the listener(s),
for instance by rephrasing, repeating, giving examples or analogies, indicating uncertainty about
comprehension, indicating comprehension, asking for clarification, expressing appropriate
agreement, reservations or appreciation of speakers point, interrupting where necessary to
express any of the foregoing. Speakers will also have to take into account the listeners
knowledge of the world and/or of the particular topic of the interaction. This reciprocal nature of
the interaction facilitates communication as both speaker and listener co-operate to ensure
mutual understanding (Bygate 1987: 12-13).
Speakers have also to decide on what they are to say next and how to express it while they are
speaking. This fact may affect the structure of the speakers utterance and the density of
communicated information.

2.2. Functions of Spoken Language

Brown & Yule (1983a: 1-3; 1983b: 11-16) remark that language can be seen as having two
functions: transferring information (transactional function) and establishing/maintaining social
relationships (interactional function). Interactional spoken language is characterised by shifts of
topic and short turns. The accuracy and clarity of information in not of primary importance, and
facts/views are not normally questioned or challenged. In transactional spoken language longer
turns are the norm and there is a clear topic. Since the effective transference of information is the
goal, interlocutors are actively engaged in the negotiation of meaning. Brown & Yule summarise
the above stating that whereas interactional language is listener oriented, transactional
language is message oriented.

2.3. On Native Oral Production

As regards native oral production, one can distinguish some general features of the spoken
language (as opposed to the written one). These features are the result of the speakers efforts
to facilitate their speaking production and/or the time constraints imposed on them by the nature
of oral communication (Brown & Yule 1983a: 15-17; Brown & Yule 1983b: 4; Bygate 1987: 14-21;
McCarthy 1991: 143-144).
a. The syntax tends to be less complicated than in written language (Brown & Yule 1983b: 4).
Speakers seem to favour parataxis (i.e. phrases linked not by subordination but by
coordinating connectors (and, or, but), or phrases that are understood by the listener as
being related to each other only by the way they are uttered by the speaker), and ellipsis (i.e.
omission of elements of the sentence).
b. Instances of ungrammatical utterances are common (if one considers the written medium to
be the norm of grammatical correctness). McCarthy (1991: 143) provides an example:
Theres another secretary too who I do not know what shes responsible for.
c. Pauses, repetition and false starts are rather frequent.
d. The use of time-creating devices (filters, pauses, hesitations) (Bygate 1987: 18).
Based on these facts, Brown & Yule (1983b: 22 & 26) propose that it would be irrational and
unnatural to expect the EFL learner to produce full, grammatically correct sentences when
speaking.

2.4. What Is to Be Taught (Speaking in the EFL Classroom)

Although Brown & Yule (1983b) state that spoken language is primarily interactional, they go on
to propose that what the EFL learner needs more is the teaching of extended transactional turns
(op. cit.: 24), giving the following reasons:
Long transactional turns can prove demanding even for native speakers.
It is more often the case that the EFL learner needs L2 to communicate/acquire information.
It is more feasible as far as methodology is concerned (op. cit.: 23-24 & 33).
McCarthy (1991: 137) argues that there is a bias in favour of transactional talk reflected in the
design of materials/activities for the EFL classroom and proposes that the element of
unpredictability which is inherent in interactional talk should be present in speaking and listening
activities.

2.5. On Learner Strategies

Learners use communication strategies (Bygate, 1987: 42-48; Ellis, 1985: 180-185) in order to
compensate for their imperfect mastery of the language when faced with a communicative need.
Faerch & Kasper (1980 in Ellis 1985: 181) present them as being potentially conscious in the
sense that learners may not always be conscious of the strategies they employ. Ellis adds that
they can be motivated when learners become aware of the shortcomings of the linguistic means
at their disposal. Ellis regards communication strategies to be the short-term solution to a
problem, learning strategies being the long-term answer.
Communication strategies can be sub-categorised into achievement and reduction strategies.
The first aim at communicating the whole message as perceived by the speaker. Examples of
achievement strategies are: the use of L1 items, translation, paraphrasing, miming or pointing,
eliciting/asking for help from interlocutor. The second aim at either communicating an imperfect
message or communicating a message other than the one intended initially (a message that the
speaker can manage to communicate).

3. CLASSROOM CONTEXT
3.1. School Facilities
A small private EFL school (English is the only language taught). There were enough tape
recorders to record groups of three students separately during the activities. Unfortunately, other
rooms were not always available and groups performed/recorded in the same room. As the room
itself is quite small, there is considerable background noise in some of the recordings.

3.2. Methodology
In previous years the methodology was teacher-centred with a focus on accuracy. Grammar was
considered of primary importance and was taught through a separate grammar book. Vocabulary
teaching consisted mainly of memorisation of either synonyms or Greek equivalents. Writing
lessons consisted of memorisation and writing of model compositions, combined with grammar
and vocabulary exercises. For listening and reading, First-Certificate-test type exercises were
used. Speaking skills were not dealt with in any way (students were not expected to interact).
Learner-centred methods, skills development activities/tasks and group-work were introduced this
year. The students responded rather well to the new (for them) teaching methods and by the time
of the project they had come to regard pair/group work to be a matter of course.

3.3 Students
Age: 14-16 (Secondary School students).
Culture & Language: All students shared the same culture and L1 (Greek).
Level: Formally their level is Upper-intermediate. In the Greek EFL context this means that the
students have been learning English for six to seven years. It is common practice in Greece for
students to start learning English at the age of 8 to 10. After six to eight years of tuition, they
normally sit the FCE exam. This class was expected to take the exam at the end of next year. In
reality the students are of mixed ability, two students in particular would benefit more from an
Intermediate class.
Attitude: On the whole they show interest. Nevertheless, since most of them come to classes
right after school (schools in Greece work in morning or afternoon shifts) their concentration and
ability to work are (understandably) not of high standards. Nevertheless, they seemed interested
in the idea of a project on speaking and they were involved during the project. The fact that the
activities were recorded added a further element of interest and improved their participation (that
is after the first shock had worn off).

4. THE PRE-TEST
4.1. The Activity
Students are presented with controversial statements characterising the good teacher. The
students are asked to decide on two they most agree with and two they most disagree with as (a)
individuals, (b) groups of 3 or 4, (c) a class.

4.2. Some General Observations

As a whole the discussion lacks natural flow and it is not easy for the listener to follow.
Particularly in the case of group B it is not often clear whether the group came to an
agreement, nor which the groups choices were.
In several cases students do not adjust their responses according to their interlocutors opinion
and do not show intention to negotiate. For example, instead of responding to other students
views they just move on to express their own when their turn comes. In such instances the
discussion seems more like a series of monologues.
They do not make any attempts to circumlocute in order to compensate for vocabulary
shortcomings, and when they do try they are rarely successful.
They seem to regard helping each other as inappropriate (in some instances they whisper
when they do so).
They do not seem to regard the negotiation of meaning as being a joint responsibility.
They leave their utterances unfinished.
They do not often signal (lack of) understanding/interest (few instances of asking for repetition/
clarification/confirmation).

4.3. The Feedback

The students were asked to fill in two questionnaires, and were involved in a class discussion on
the pre-test activity and the questionnaires with the aim to:
Record the students reactions to the activity (e.g. problems).
Indirectly raise the issue of certain strategies and to enquire about the students views on
their usefulness.
Check the degree to which students were conscious of the strategies they used.
According to the students the two main sources of problems were lack of relevant vocabulary
(78%) and lack of relevant formulaic expressions (67%) (Bygate 1987: 17). An interesting
instance of inconsistency occurred when the students stated (during the feedback discussion)
that they had not encountered any problems concerning lexical shortcomings. Lack of adequate
grammar knowledge and lack of confidence followed in their ranking (44%). The students were
aware of the reduction strategies they used (Bygate 1987: 47-48; Ellis 1985: 184-185). They did
not seem aware of the lack of circumlocution on their part although they stated that they opt for
Greek/silence as often as they try to circumlocute.
During the feedback discussion after Questionnaires I and II, it became clear that some students
somehow understood the words co-operation/help as meaning correction. Also some students
thought that the teacher should intervene in a groups discussion and help/correct a student

If no one else can.

Because each person will have a different opinion about his/ / /em/ or if hes stuck
(= so to speak, in Greek) /e/ he want to / / / /e/ he want to help in a different
way // and the most /e/ correct /e/ way is /e/ you.
At that point I elicited the function of providing the interlocutor with the item he/she lacks or
finishing his/her utterance:

T(teacher):
P:
T:

What do you show?

That you understand.
What else?

AD:
T:
AD:

That you care.

...and that you are ...?
Interested.

On circumlocution their opinions were mixed. Some examples:

If you can.
But sometimes its very difficult to find different words / to say something (S: Yes.) if
you do not know the vocabulary / the right vocabulary. S: And then you have to
say it in /e/ Greek. N: I do not agree / I think we know enough words to say
something in different words. AD: If its very difficult? P: If its a subject that
you do not know / words... N: You go on to say something else. H: Start
again.
You cant find always words / more simple words to express it / I think you do not.
M: I say it in a simple way from the beginning.
4.4. Rationale
Shortcomings of vocabulary and grammar were obviously encountered during the discussion.
Nevertheless, it does not seem to be the case that remedial lessons on vocabulary/grammar
would result in considerable improvement of the students oral production. It seems that students
would benefit more from lessons focusing on communication strategies (Bygate 1987: 42-48;
Ellis: 1985: 84 & 184) and negotiation skills (Bygate 1987: 47; Ellis: 1985: 184).
Also, since their efforts to employ production/achievement strategies (Bygate 1987: 44-46; Ellis:
1985: 184) were not always conscious or successful, remedial lessons aimed at improving the
students fluency had best focus on production/achievement strategies and negotiation skills.
Students can become aware of (and trained in) the use of certain production/achievement
strategies. Furthermore, they can become aware of certain features of native speech (Brown &
Yule 1983a: 15-17; Brown & Yule 1983b: 4; McCarthy 1991: 141-144). By integrating these two
elements in their spoken production the students can become more confident and effective
communicators.

5. THE DESIGN
5.1. Objectives & Content
The focus of the lessons was on oral communication, with the purpose of improving learners
confidence and fluency, as outlined in the aims. Students were led to awareness of certain
communication strategies/skills as used by native speakers. Expressions through which these
strategies/skills can be linguistically realised were elicited and presented.

5.2. Lesson Format

Lessons 2, 3, 4 and 6 began with a listening/awareness activity in which students were asked/led
to identify instances of communication strategies/skills used, as well as their linguistic realisation.
In Lesson 1, an adaptation of the deep end strategy (Johnson 1981: 192-193) was employed.
Through the reports of students observing the language used by others carrying out an activity
(describe and draw), and a feedback discussion between the observers, the activity-participants
and the teacher, the students were led to identify certain shortcomings of their production. In

Lesson 5 the recording of an activity carried out in the first part of the lesson was used as data for
the feedback task that followed. The benefits of employing the strategy/skill were discussed and
further relevant expressions were elicited/presented. Students were given the opportunity to
practice the strategy/skill in isolation before re-integrating it in the context of a holistic activity
(Cook 1991: 82-83).
Most lessons generally follow a (somehow modified) presentation-practice-production format.
Cook (1991: 83-85) states that the use of atomistic activities as an intermediate measure can be
justified on the grounds that teenagers/adults have the ability to think and talk metalinguistically
(an ability that the teacher should exploit), provided that the isolated levels of communication be
re-integrated. The lessons followed a cycle of isolation/examination and practice/re-integration.

5.3. Materials
The listening materials used consisted of either extracts from specially recorded tapes
accompanying course-books and books on listening skills development, or students recordings
from previous lessons. In Lesson 1 (Activity 1) the extract used was an authentic BBC recording
(Geddes, 1988). Since the level of difficulty proved to be above the listening competence of the
students (resulting in initial frustration and the need to re-play the tape several times) taped
material closer to the students level had to be selected. Students own recordings were used in
order to either make students aware of the lack of use of certain communicative strategies/skills
on their part, or make students conscious of the communicative strategies they did employ.

5.5. Activities/Tasks
Listening/Awareness Activities
Students were required to
fill gaps in a given transcript of the listening text.
indicate whether certain expressions/strategies were used by the speakers.
identify the use of a strategy and note down its linguistic realisation.
decide on the communicative meaning of certain phrases/expressions and note them down.
Regarding the study of authentic conversations which are to be used as conversational models,
Brown & Yule (1983b: 33) state that the attention of students should be focused only on those
elements that they are supposed to be paying attention to. They should be led to observe
particularly important features... and, as soon as possible, put these observations to use. It
seems reasonable that this principle could be transferred to the observation/awareness of the
communication strategies/ skills employed by the interlocutors on tape.

Communication Activities
Students performed activities which involved:
Describing and drawing.
Finding the difference between two partially identical pictures.
Rixon & Byrne (1979) and Harmer (1983) (both cited in Bygate 1987: 78) refer to the above two
activities as communication games.)
Discussing ideas/views/opinions -notably students were engaged in activities in which they
had to:
o
Choose from a list of (unalterable) given statements the ones they most
agree/disagree with.
o
Choose from a list of given statements the ones they agree with and modify the
remaining ones according to their opinion.

o
o

Rank a number of statements according to their beliefs/opinions.

Agree on and formulate statements expressing their views on a given subject and
then discuss them in different groups (having to reformulate the ones they disagree
on according to the second groups opinion).

The activities listed were selected/adopted in order to provide the students with a context in which
they could re-integrate the strategies/skills dealt with in each lesson, and to lead students to
become used to dealing with the kinds of unpredictable problems which reciprocal speech brings
into (these) interaction situations (notably informal discussion and informal planning/decision
making) (Bygate 1987: 34-35). Bygate terms these activities as two-way and argues that they
generate more talk and more use of negotiation procedures (op. cit.: 65).
Littlewood (1981) presents such activities as functional communication activities (processing
information and sharing and processing information). He states that the stimulus for
communication comes from the need to discuss and evaluate (these) facts, ... learners must, ...
agree, justify and persuade in order to reach a common decision. Rivers & Temperley (1978, in
Bygate, 1987: 55) refer to such activities as interaction activities in which personal meaning can
be conveyed.
Ur (1981: 11-17) states that in order for a discussion to be successful a purpose is needed. This
purpose is manifested through a task which should involve thinking, interaction, result and
interest. Also, Brown & Yule (1983b: 118) refer to task-based activities as creating situations in
which the speaker has to produce extended chunks of speech. As regards thinking the students
were asked to either form an opinion as individuals before the group discussion or to take part in
a pre-discussion before they were re-grouped for the final stage. The result of the activity was
the group decision recorded in the form of statements, choices among alternatives, or arguments
formulated in order to persuade the members of the other group(s). Since the result was
reaching a consensus (which would be recorded and/or used for the next stage of the
discussion), or convincing the rest of the group of ones choices/opinions, interaction was a
prerequisite. As far as interest is concerned, the topics were based on the students stated
personal interests (during an informal discussion at an earlier point of the course) and on the
teachers observation that students were keen to participate in informal debates where they could
express opinions.
Brown & Yule (1983b: 34-37) argue that an important element which affects the success of such
activities is the communicative stress involved. According to them, increase of communicative
stress may negatively affect the learners oral production. They suggest the following conditions
relating to communicative stress:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

The level of familiarity of speaker/listener.

The situation (environment).
The relative level of l2 knowledge of the interlocutors.
The information gap.
The familiarity with the information held.
The vocabulary needed.
The structure of the task and of the information to be communicated.

In the particular situation, conditions (a), (b,) (c) and (d) provided a rather low level of
communicative stress as the students knew each other, were familiar with the classroom and
shared almost the same level of L2 knowledge. Furthermore, the information (opinions/views)
each speaker had to control was familiar to him/her and was not known by the listener (condition
(e)). Regarding conditions (f) and (g), communicative stress was rather high for two reasons.
First, relevant vocabulary was not pre-taught, so that students would be motivated to
circumlocute and/or share vocabulary knowledge (the latter leading them to assume joint
responsibility for communication). Second, students had not only to express but also to justify
their choices/opinions. Nevertheless, since in most cases communicative stress was kept low,

students were expected to perform adequately in re-integrating the strategies/skills and the
aspects of interaction routines dealt with in each lesson.

5.6. Groupings
The activities were carried out by students in different groupings, not only as to the number of
students in each group (which ranged from pairs to groups of 5), but also as to the individuals in
each group. Students were given the opportunity to interact with everybody else in the class in
the context of pairs/small groups on a number of occasions. On small groups, Bygate states that
they provide greater intensity of involvement, that learners spend more time negotiating and
checking on meaning and that each group determines its own appropriate level of working
(1987: 96-97). The last statement provides a rationale for varying the individual students in which
group (from lesson to lesson and/or from one step of an activity to the next). The staging of
activities and the variation of individuals in each group was manipulated by the teacher, so that
students were made familiar with a variety of paces/levels of working (which were dictated by the
relative linguistic and communicative abilities of the students involved).

5.7. Roles of Students and Teacher

Regarding the content and aims of the project, although it was the teacher who made the final
decision, the feedback from students through questionnaires and informal discussions were a
helpful guideline. In the awareness/practice stages the teacher preferred (where possible) to
guide/elicit than to present and to facilitate student awareness. During communication activities
students assumed joint responsibility for the success/failure of communication within their groups
and exploited each others knowledge/skills. Learner independence was also helped by the fact
that in most cases different groups were in different rooms. The tape recorder substituted for the
teacher as a monitor.

6. THE POST-TEST
6.1. Description
Like the pre-test, the post-test was a free activity where students had to reach a consensus.
They were supposed to be a committee which had to decide on the most suitable person to
receive an inheritance, having to choose between five claimants (activity adapted from Ur, 1981).
They were given a hand-out containing information about the deceased and the claimants.

6.2. Procedure
In Stage 1 the students were divided into three groups (Sub-committees A, B and C). Since only
seven students were present, they were grouped in two pairs and a group of three. These subcommittees had to come to a decision (which counted as one vote). They were also asked to
note down their reasons for their choice. These notes would help them during Stage 2 in which
students 1 and students 2 from each sub-committee formed new groups (in this case one group
of 3 and one group of 4). The new groups had also to come to a decision (which also counted as
a vote). Then the votes would be counted and in case of a tie a class discussion would be held
and probably a final vote would be taken (which was the case).
An outline of the stages:

First Stage:

 Sub-committee A: Students A1 & A2

Sub-committee B: Students B1, B2 & B3
Sub-committee C: Students C1 & C2

Second Stage:
Sub-committee 1: Students A1, B2, C1 & B3
Sub-committee 2: Students A2, B2 & C2

6.3. Some Observations

The students found the topic of the activity very interesting. Discussions were lively, especially
during Stage 2. The discussion of sub-committee 1, in particular, was rather lengthy and ended
as an argument. It was very encouraging that although students were involved in a heated
exchange, they kept arguing in English. In fact, a class discussion and a final vote were needed
as students could not decide on one of the two shortlisted claimants. The instances of Greek
during the class discussion were much more frequent as students became too involved in the
activity (Ur, 1981). Since the need to communicate their ideas/views and to convince their
interlocutor superseded the need to practice, the students (occasionally) opted for the use of their
L1 as a more effective means of communication.

6.4. Drawbacks
In the lesson of the post-test two students (Pandelis and Aris) were absent. Furthermore, a third
student (Stacey) arrived late (when the three pairs had already started the activity). Therefore, it
was impossible to duplicate the groups of the pre-test. Nevertheless, an effort was made to, at
least, retain interaction between the same students as in the pre-test. Thus the pairs/groups
were: Nick and Stavros (without Pandelis), Chris and Letta (without Haroula) and Adla and Stacey
(with Haroula instead of Aris). This was the closest approximation of the pre grouping that was
feasible under the circumstances.

Groups in Pre-Test
Nick + Stavros + Pandelis

Adla + Stacey + Aris

Chris + Letta + Haroula

Groups in Post-Test
Stage I
Nick + Stavros

Adla + Haroula + Stacey

Chris + Letta

Stage II
Nick + Adla + Stacey + Chris

Stavros + Letta + Haroula

7. DISCUSSION & EVALUATION

7.1. The Teachers View (a first impression)
The aim of the project was to help students become more confident and successful
communicators; that is to encourage students to take risks and interact during a discussion. It
seems that this aim has been achieved. An observation of students oral production during the

post-test (compared to the one during the pre-test) shows improvement. The students sound
more confident and willing to interact, their arguments are clearer and instances of silence or use
of Greek are very few. All in all, their discussions are more fluent, to the point and easy to follow.
As their level of linguistic competence does not show any improvement (lexical and grammatical
inaccuracies/shortcomings are frequent), it can be argued that it is the students communicative
competence that has improved.

7.2. The Students View

The answers to (and the discussion on) the first question revealed that most students confuse
formal language knowledge with the ability to use this knowledge for communication. Most of
them understood the lessons as being on words (67%) and useful expressions (78%). On the
issue of vocabulary two interesting comments were made by the students. Firstly, they regarded
the lessons on circumlocution as vocabulary lessons: We learned how to say a word in
another way, ... its a way to express words. Secondly, they argued that they increased
their vocabulary by using lexical items from the tasksheets during the activities: Because we

were interested ... to keep on.

Some students (33%) thought they also learned grammar. Their reasons: We learned how to
talk, We practised... by speaking in English, You learn from your mistakes. Apart from the
assumption made in the beginning, it may also be the case that students adopted and
internalised structures used by their peers during the activities. An interesting question, of course,
is whether these (allegedly internalised) structures were accurate.
Others (33%) somehow seemed to depart from this vocabulary/grammar notion and to show
some awareness of the concept of strategies. They thought the lessons were on: Learning

how to speak real English / and how to be confident; What we do when we are thinking
and speaking on the same time, To speak when you think something (meaning while
youre thinking).
All students shared the feeling that their confidence had increased. They attributed this to the fact
that we learned how to talk even if were not right, Even if we do not know a word we
can talk. It seemed that their insecurity primarily stemmed from fear of mistakes or inability to
retrieve/use the right words (as the students put it). Most of them agreed that their attitude
towards speaking had changed ...I did not like to speak... (now) I like English. One of the
students raised the issue of language use outside the classroom context: We do not find
people. When a joint speaking lesson with a class above their level was suggested, the
students reactions revealed an interesting fact. Most students admitted that they felt intimidated by
the idea of interacting with someone of higher linguistic competence, not so much because they would
not understand their interlocutors (We can ask questions) but because they felt that their inferior
performance would be mocked (They will laugh at us).

7.3. The Teachers View (Some Reservations)

Since the pre and post activities as well as the corresponding feedback/questionnaires were
used as evidence of the students improvement and of the achievement of the aims, a closer look
at them seems necessary, as it could reveal points that might counter the first impression.
One could argue that the improvement of the students oral performance between the pre and
post activities was not so much due to the remedial lessons but also to factors that may have
facilitated or impeded the students performance in each activity. Brown & Yule (1983b: 34) term
such factors as communicative stress. We will concern ourselves with the following factors:

The type of the task

a.

What exactly the students were required to do in order to carry out the activity (e.g. describe
& draw, come to a consensus, tell a story from a picture sequence etc.),
b. How familiar the students were with the particular type of task.
The topic of the activity
a.
b.
c.

Degree of student interest in the topic.

Degree of familiarity with it.
The relevant vocabulary possessed by the students.

The grouping
a.
b.

The number of students in each group.

The actual students in each group.

It seems that, in order for the improvement to be attributed to the remedial lessons, all the above
factors should have remained the same in both the pre and post activities. I will now examine
both activities against the factors listed above.

The type of task

a.

The two tasks seem to be of the same type. Harmer (1983, quoted in Bygate 1987: 71) presents
such activities as communicative activities of the reaching a consensus type. Rivers &
Temperley (1978, quoted in Bygate 1987: 72-73) present them as interaction activities in the
discussing ideas category. Both tasks are two-way tasks (Bygate 1987: 65). In both activities
students had some shared information (a common school background in the case of the pre-test
and the information handout on the claimants in the case of the post-test). Their different
views/opinions can be seen as constituting the element of different information (loc. cit.).
b. Before the pre activity the students did not have much exposure to similar decision making
activities, whereas the project-lessons offered several such opportunities during a relatively
small time-span. It seems a relevant point that students were consequently more familiar with
the type of task in the post activity.

The topic of the activity

a.

Students showed interest in both activities but more in the post one (which was shown by
the fact that they ended up arguing).
b. School and money matters appear to be high among students interests, so we may
assume that they were equally familiar with both topics.
c. In both activities students relied to a great extent on the vocabulary provided by the
information on the tasksheets. Therefore, it does not seem that there was considerable
difference as regards the students relevant lexical knowledge.

The grouping
a.

Whereas in the pre-test students were in groups of three, in the post-test students were in
pairs and a group of three.
b. This factor could be considered as remaining the same, if there had been no change in the
composition of each group. This was the case up to a point. In two of the groups one of the
students was absent. In the group of three one of the students was not in the pre-test group.
As there was some degree of inconsistency concerning the factors mentioned, it may be the case
that the improvement in students performance was not entirely due to the remedial lessons.

A second point to be made concerns one of the aims, notably to help the students become
conscious of certain achievement strategies (Bygate, 1987: 44-46, Ellis 1985: 184-185). An
interpretation of the feedback after the post-questionnaire indicates that most students (66%)
have not come to the point of using these strategies consciously (although they do use them
effectively). This can be attributed to the absence and/or inadequacy of feedback sessions after
some lessons.

8. CONCLUSIONS
It would not be an overstatement to say that probably the person who benefited most from this
project was the teacher himself. Trying to identify and evaluate weaknesses -particularly in the
area of communication strategies where their linguistic manifestation is the only clue the observer
has- and choosing appropriate materials, devising/adapting activities/tasks and deciding on the
techniques that should best be employed is bound to somehow increase the teachers awareness
concerning his tools, the learners and himself as a teacher.

8.1 Materials
Listening Texts
Although the use of authentic materials should be the norm if students are to become aware of
(and familiarise themselves with) aspects of native oral production (Brown & Yule 1983a: 15-17),
the teacher has to be consciously critical as regards the level of difficulty. In Activity 1 of Lesson 1,
it took several repetitions before the (frustrated) students identified the instance of circumlocution.
It seems that, since students need to be gradually made aware of aspects of native speech (in
order to incorporate them in their speaking), the use of specially made authentic like recordings
during the initial stages can be justified.

The Tape Recorder

A very important discovery during this project was the record button on the tape recorder.
Recording students activities and feedback discussions (or recording the whole lesson for that
matter) provides the teacher with usefully data. Recordings can function as a perfect monitoring
device, a databank which the teacher can exploit to follow students progress (whether in fluency
or accuracy), to prepare remedial lessons or to use for awareness activities. Recordings can also
provide a clear picture of the types of interaction among learners and between teacher and
learners.

8.2 Feedback
Oral feedback sessions
Feedback discussions proved to be an essential element of a lesson. As far as the students are
concerned, feedback sessions offer them the opportunity to exchange opinions and exploit their
ability to comment on each lesson. Seeing that their comments are taken into consideration, the
students feel active participants in the decision making and, therefore, may assume responsibility
for their learning. As regards the teacher, feedback sessions can not only provide him with
valuable information concerning the students degree of understanding and help him decide on
remedial lessons, but they can also be a source of ideas on materials/activities/ follow up lessons.

Questionnaires

They are another useful way of getting student feedback; that is useful when they are carefully
prepared. There is always the danger that the teacher will impose his own ideas through
questions that suggest the answer the teacher would like to get. Furthermore, questionnaires can
be used to focus the students attention on certain aspects of their own oral performance and/or
on the subject matter of the following lesson(s). For example, questionnaires I and II focused the
students attention on certain achievement and reduction strategies and led them to reflect on
their own (and discuss each others) performance.
It appears that a questionnaire is more effective in terms of the information provided and/or the
awareness achieved when it presents the students with specific statements/answers which they
have to choose from. A general question may seem less leading but it will probably yield an
equally general answer (e.g. if question II2 was: What do you do when the person you are talking
to gets stuck?, the answers given would very likely be along the lines of Try to help him/her).
Ideally a feedback discussion should follow the questionnaire since it may reveal any
inconsistencies in students answers.

8.3 Activities / Tasks

Topic
Although an interesting and relevant topic is essential for the success of an activity, a topic that is
too interesting may result in L1 use. Students can become involved in the discussion to the
point where communicating their ideas arises as their primary goal. Therefore, they opt for their
L1, since this is the most effective means of communication at their disposal.

Procedure
A discussion can become more personalised when only the topic is given and the students are
asked to formulate their own propositions/statements to be discussed and decided on (as
opposed to providing a list to choose from). If time is provided so that the students think and jot
down some ideas individually before joining their groups (or discuss them in pairs/small groups
before re-grouping), then the clarity of the students arguments is positively affected and the
discussion proceeds more smoothly.

Follow up
Although the type and topic of the activities employed to develop the students oral competence
may be varied by the teacher, the interlocutors (and their relative level) and the setting
(classroom, school) remain the same (during a certain period of time). However, among the
students aims are communicating with speakers of other languages and sitting certain exams
(when they will be required to interact with a stranger-examiner). Furthermore, as mentioned
above, as confident as the students may feel when interacting among them, they still feel
somehow inhibited when it comes to interacting with people of a higher level of competence.
Therefore, it seems essential that students are given the opportunity to be involved in oral
interaction with interlocutors unfamiliar to them and/or of a higher level. The most feasible
solution (within the constraints of the particular teachers situation) appears to be mixing students
of different levels in speaking-skills lessons.
Concerning the production of long turns (Brown & Yule 1983b: 16-20), students will benefit from
training in narratives; that is from training in handling such elements of a narrative as sequence of
events in time, place shifts, different participants etc. (op. cit.: 39-46).
As regards student awareness, tasks requiring students to identify strategies used by the
interlocutors can be incorporated in listening skills activities. Furthermore, the recordings of
students performance in oral activities can be used as data for awareness/feedback tasks (see

also Nolasco & Arthur, 1987: 125-136). The students will have the opportunity to assess/discuss
the development of their own production. Similarly, students could be given the tape and do the
tasks as homework.

The pre and post tests

Both the pre and the post test could be carried out in two steps: In the first students would be
grouped more or less randomly. In the second step students of the same level would be required
to interact together (i.e. the stronger and weaker students would be grouped separately). A
comparison of the two tests could not only reveal the degree of improvement each student had
made but also provide the teacher with information on whether (or to what extent) the relative
competence of the students/interlocutors may affect their individual performance.
REFERENCES
Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983a. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983b. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford University Press.
Cook, G. 1987. Discourse. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Johnson, K. 1981. Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Pergamon Press.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Nolasco, R. & L. Arthur. 1987. Conversation. Oxford University Press.
Ur, P. 1981. Discussions that Work. Cambridge University Press.

SOURCES OF LISTENING TEXTS

Geddes, M. 1988. How to Listen. BBC English.
Jones, L. 1991. Cambridge Advanced English. Cambridge University Press.
Mortimer, C. Dramatic Monologues for Listening Comprehension. Cambridge University Press.
ONeil, R. 1987. Success at First Certificate. Oxford University Press.
Templer, J. C. 1986. First Certificate Soundtrack. Heinemann.

SOURCES OF TASKS & ACTIVITIES

Golebiowska, A. 1990. Getting Students to Talk. Prentice Hall.
Klippel, F. 1984. Keep Talking. Cambridge University Press.
Nolasco, R. & L. Arthur. 1987. Conversation. Oxford University Press.
Ur, P. 1981. Discussions that Work. Cambridge University Press.
Lynn Gallacher, British Council, Spain
Project work is becoming an increasingly popular feature within the ELT classroom. Common projects are
class magazines, group wall displays about students' countries and designs for cities of the future. A project
involves students in deciding together what they want to do to complete a project whilst the teacher plays a
more supporting role.

Some advantages
Planning the project
Some possible drawbacks
Example projects
References

Some advantages of project work are:

Increased motivation - learners become personally involved in the project.

All four skills, reading, writing, listening and speaking, are integrated.
Autonomous learning is promoted as learners become more responsible for their own learning.
There are learning outcomes -learners have an end product.
Authentic tasks and therefore the language input are more authentic.
Interpersonal relations are developed through working as a group.
Content and methodology can be decided between the learners and the teacher and within the
group themselves so it is more learner centred.
Learners often get help from parents for project work thus involving the parent more in the
child's learning. If the project is also displayed parents can see it at open days or when they pick
the child up from the school.
A break from routine and the chance to do something different.
A context is established which balances the need for fluency and accuracy.
Haines (1989)

Planning the project

Opening
To give learners an idea of what projects are and what they should be aiming to produce, it is good
to have examples of past projects: a photocopy of a previous group newspaper or a photograph of
a wall display.

Proposing
After explaining the idea behind the project I ask learners to propose a scheme of work:
o What they want to include in the project
o What form it will take
o Who will be responsible for what
o An idea of the time it will take to produce each part of the project
o Any material or resources they might need

I would then sit down with each group for 10 minutes to discuss their proposals (a copy of which
both I and the learner would keep to refer to as the project develops). At this point the evaluation
procedures would also be explained.

Time
Allocate an agreed amount of time for the project. For a summer 60 hour course of 3 hours a day I
would dedicate 5 hours to project work so approx. 6 sessions of 45 minutes each with a round up
session at the end. I would also have the sessions on the same day each week - Wednesday, and
Friday, for example, so learners know to bring materials to class on that day.

Space
Show the learners the space they will have for the project, it could be wall space or a corner of the
classroom, so they have some idea how much material they should produce and can plan the
layout.
Materials and resources
Provide the learners with materials they might need: card, scissors glue, paper etc. It is fairly
common now for learners to want to use the Internet to find information for their projects.
Encourage a keen student with Internet to do this at home! If there is time and Internet available in
the school make sure the students have informed you of exactly what they're looking for - photosor that they have prepared a list of information they want to find. Simply giving the learners time on

the computers can lead to them aimlessly surfing the net. If the facility is available learners often
like to write finished drafts of their work on the computer.
Presentation
Projects need to be seen, read and admired so schedule the last project session as a presentation.
Ask the group to prepare a task for the others in the class to do connected to the project: it could be
a quiz with questions for a wall display, a crossword using vocabulary for the project or
comprehension questions for a video that learners have made.
Evaluation
As with any piece of work a project needs to be acknowledged and evaluated. It's not enough to
just say 'that's great' after all the work learners have put in. I use a simple project evaluation report,
which comments on aspects of the project such as content, design, language work and also
evaluates the oral presentation stage of the project.
Top of page

Some possible drawbacks to project work

Learners using their own language

If the class are monolingual they may use their L1 a lot (it often happens anyway in YL classes) so
you should decide whether the benefits of doing project work outweigh this factor.
Some learners doing nothing
By giving more freedom to the learners you may also be giving them the freedom to do nothing! If
the project is planned carefully and roles decided at the proposal stage this is less likely to happen.
Groups working at different speeds
One group may have 'finished' the project after a couple of hours and say they have nothing to do.
Remind them it is their responsibility to fill the time allocated to project work and discuss ways they
could extend the work they have already completed.
Top of page

Examples of project work

A project based on readers

At a summer school I worked in learners were encouraged to have a reader during the month
course. This is not always a popular requirement so I decided to have the learners use the readers
in a way they might find motivating.
o First I chose 4 different readers that had also been made into films - The Full Monty, The
Client, Dracula, Mosquito Coast. Each group were given copies of their reader.
o The learners were then given free reign to do whatever they liked as long as it was
somehow connected to the reader.
o Examples of the work produced were:
Summaries of the story.
Crosswords / word searches of vocabulary from the story.
Reviews of the book.
Information found about the history of Dracula.
Filmed scene from the book.
Presentation of a clip from the film of the book compared to a scene in the book.
Biographies and photos of actors from the film.

Music Project
If your class loves songs this could be a motivating project.
Make a CD Cover.
Invent the band and the names and biographies of the band members.
Video an interview with the band.
Record a song. (Students often borrowed the music and wrote their own lyrics)

Write gig reviews.

Photo shoot of the band.
Design a poster advertising gigs.

There are also many other ideas but I hope this shows the variety of work which can be produced.
References
Haines S (1989) Projects for the EFL classroom
London: Nelson
Further Reading
Phillips D, S Burwood & H Dunford (1999) Projects with Young Learners Oxford: OUP
Fried-Booth D (1986) Project Work Oxford: OUP
Wicks. M (2000) Imaginative Projects: CUP
Planning is one of those essential skills of the competent teacher. This article looks at some general lesson
planning questions:

What should go into an English language lesson?

What is a lesson plan?
Why is planning important?
Do you need to plan if you have a course book?
What are the principles of planning?

What should go into an English language lesson?

Every lesson and class is different. The content depends on what the teacher wants to achieve in the
lesson. However it is possible to make some generalisations. Students who are interested in, involved in and
enjoy what they are studying tend to make better progress and learn faster.
When thinking about an English lesson it is useful therefore to keep the following three elements in mind Engage - Study - Activate
Engage
This means getting the students interested in the class. Engaging students is important for the learning
process.
Study
Every lesson usually needs to have some kind of language focus. The study element of a lesson could be a
focus on any aspect of the language, such as grammar or vocabulary and pronunciation. A study stage
could also cover revision and extension of previously taught material.
Activate
Telling students about the language is not really enough to help them learn it. For students to develop their
use of English they need to have a chance to produce it. In an activate stage the students are given tasks
which require them to use not only the language they are studying that day, but also other language that
they have learnt.
Top of page
What is a lesson plan?
A lesson plan is a framework for a lesson. If you imagine a lesson is like a journey, then the lesson plan is
the map. It shows you where you start, where you finish and the route to take to get there.
Essentially the lesson plan sets out what the teacher hopes to achieve over the course of the lesson and
how he or she hopes to achieve it. Usually they are in written form but they don't have to be. New or
inexperienced teachers may want to or be required to produce very detailed plans - showing clearly what is

happening at any particular time in the lesson. However in a realistic teaching environment it is perhaps
impractical to consider this detail in planning on a daily basis. As teachers gain experience and confidence
planning is just as important but teachers develop the ability to plan more quickly and very experienced
teachers may be able to go into class with just a short list of notes or even with the plan in their heads.
Whatever the level of experience, it is important that all teachers take time to think through their lessons
before they enter the classroom.

Why is planning important?

One of the most important reasons to plan is that the teacher needs to identify his or her aims for the
lesson. Teachers need to know what it is they want their students to be able to do at the end of the lesson
that they couldn't do before. Here are some more reasons planning is important:-

gives the teacher the opportunity to predict possible problems and therefore consider solutions
makes sure that lesson is balanced and appropriate for class
gives teacher confidence
planning is generally good practice and a sign of professionalism

Top of page
Do you need to plan if you have a course book?
Many teachers will find themselves having to use a course book. There are advantages and disadvantages
to having a course book - but although they do provide a ready made structure for teaching material, it is
very unlikely the material was written for the teachers' particular students. Each class is different and
teachers need to be able to adapt material from whatever source so that is suitable for their students. A
course book can certainly help planning, but it cannot replace the teacher's own ideas for what he or she
wants to achieve in a class.

What are the principles of planning?

Aims - considering realistic goals for the lesson, not too easy but not too difficult. You may find the
following checklist useful:
o What do the students know already?
o What do the students need to know?
o What did you do with the students in the previous class?
o How well do the class work together?
o How motivated are the students?
Variety - an important way of getting and keeping the students engaged and interested.
Flexibility - expect the unexpected! Things don't always go to plan in most lessons. Experienced
teachers have the ability to cope when things go wrong. It's useful when planning to build in some
extra and alternative tasks and exercises. Also teachers need to be aware of what is happening in
the classroom. Students may raise an interesting point and discussions could provide unexpected
opportunities for language work and practice. In these cases it can be appropriate to branch away
from the plan.

Effective lesson planning is the basis of effective teaching. A plan is a guide for the teacher as to where to
go and how to get there. However - don't let the plan dominate - be flexible in your planning so that when the
opportunities arise you can go with the flow.
Related

Aims and concepts

It is important to have clear and realistic aims for your lessons. One way to check this is actually to write out
what your objectives are. To demonstrate let's take the topic of the use of the prepositions 'for' and 'since'
with the present perfect. We can assume that the students have recently been introduced to the structure
and use of the present perfect. You could write out your aim like this:Aim
To present and provide practice of the use of 'for' and 'since' with the present perfect.
This is a clear but basic statement of aims. It indicates what you intend to do, but note, not how you intend to
do it.
It is helpful also to define the overall concept or meaning of the target language when it is used naturally. For
our teaching point we need to consider when native speakers use 'for' and 'since' with the present perfect.
We can now adjust our aim statement accordingly:
Aim
To present and provide practice of the use of 'for' and 'since' with the present perfect when talking about the
duration of a continuing state or action.
Phew! It hardly trips of the tongue but it is important to do. It clarifies for the teacher exactly what the
teaching point is. Many language items are used in different ways, with different concepts. Take the present
continuous aspect as an example. Compare these two sentences:"I'm writing this at my desk."
"I'm visiting my best friend next weekend"
Both of these sentences use the same form, but the concept is different. It is important when planning your
lesson to be accurate in your analysis of the concept. It can be confusing for students if different concepts
are not clearly identified or are mixed up during a presentation.
By expressing the concept in the aims, it provides a focus for the planning and that can help to prevent
possible confusion. It may be not appropriate for all situations, but it's a good habit to get into. Every planned
activity and example sentence can then be referred back to the aim to check that it fits the concept you are
trying to teach. It is essential to make sure that the exercises and activities you decide to do actually fit your
aims.
Top of page
Contexts and marker sentences
Having established the concept, the next step is to think about natural contexts or situations where the
language item to be taught is used.
For our lesson we need to think of a situation when a native speaker would use the present perfect with 'for'
and 'since'. It can be used when people talk about how long they've had their jobs and possessions. We do
this, for example, when talking about our lives - so we could take a party as our context. At a party, you
might meet new people and talk about yourself.
A common method of introducing a structure to the students is to use marker, or model sentences. These
are contextualised examples which illustrate how to 'make' the target language. If the context is clear they
also show how and when it is used. A marker sentence can be taken from almost any source. It could be
from a listening or reading text, it could come from the students themselves or the teacher can provide it.
The important thing is that the sentence is a natural and accurate example of the target language.
Marker sentences are used in the 'study' phase of the lesson (remember Engage - Study - Activate from
Planning 1). There are different ways of exploiting them. If you have a number of examples, you could ask
the students to look at the sentences and infer the rules for using 'for' and 'since'. This is what's known as an
inductive approach. Alternatively you can use the sentences to highlight and explain the rules yourself. This
is a deductive approach.

Summary
Aims, concepts, contexts and marker sentences are some of the elements that should be considered
carefully by the teacher when planning a lesson. When these are clearly established it is much easier to
ensure that the lesson being presented to the students is clear and appropriate.