Title Research into practice: Scaffolding learning processes to improve

speaking performance
Author(s) Christine C. M. Goh
Source Language Teaching, 50(2), 247-260
Published by Cambridge University Press

This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-
distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works. Copyright © 2017 Cambridge University Press

This is the author’s accepted manuscript (post-print) of a work that was accepted for
publication in the following source:

Goh, C. C. M. (2017). Research into practice: Scaffolding learning processes to improve

speaking performance. Language Teaching, 50(2), 247-260.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000483

This article has been published in a revised form in Language Teaching

[https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000483].

This document was archived with permission from the copyright owner.
 1

Research into practice: Scaffolding learning processes to improve

speaking performance

Christine C. M. Goh

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

christine.goh@nie.edu.sg

Abstract

This article is a personal view of the application of results from three areas of research that I

believe are relevant to developing second language speaking in the classroom: task

repetition, pre-task planning and communication strategies. I will discuss these three areas in

terms of levels of research application - where research is not applied well (task repetition),

where it is reasonably well applied (pre-task planning), and where it may have been over-

applied (communication strategies). For each area I briefly review the relevant research to

highlight how teachers can potentially apply the research findings to scaffold learning

processes in speaking. I will also suggest how much of the research is getting through to

teachers and being taken up in day-to-day teaching of English. I draw mainly on my own

extensive experience as a teacher educator for over 20 years working with pre-service

English teachers of bilingual students in Singapore schools and in-service teachers attending

professional development courses or pursuing Master's degree studies, as well as College

EFL teachers from the People 's Republic of China receiving postgraduate teaching

certification in ELT and higher degree qualifications in my university each year. I will also

include some observations about classroom practice based on a survey of selected course

books.
 2

Biodata

Christine C. M. Goh is professor of linguistics and language education at the National

Institute of Education, Nan yang Technological University, Singapore. She is a language

teacher educator and researcher with interests in listening and speaking (oracy) development,

spoken discourse in the English classroom, the role of metacognition in language learning,

and the relationship between second language oracy and literacy development. She has

published many international refereed journal articles, book chapters and books in these

areas.

Postal Address: 1, Nanyang Walk, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological

University, Singapore 637616

To cite this article, please use the following:

Goh, C. C. M. (2017). Research into practice: Scaffolding learning processes to improve

speaking performance. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies. 50(2), 247-260.

 3

1. Introduction

Speaking may look effortless for competent speakers, but it is in fact a cognitively and

socially demanding skill. This is particularly true for language learners who need to decide

what to say and how to express and encode their thoughts into sounds in speech streams that

make sense to their listeners. They also need to learn to interact in a range of communicative

situations and respond in ways that are contextually appropriate. Learners also need to know

how language is structured in different types of discourse according to situations and

contexts. To develop learners' speaking abilities, language teachers typically organize them

into small groups or pairs where they can practise communicating in the target language.

While they talk, their teachers move from group to group to listen to and monitor their talk.

Over time some learners may develop greater fluency and confidence but not necessarily

greater accuracy. Some, however, may lose interest in learning to speak the language because

of a perceived lack of success.

To learn to communicate well orally, learners need systematic guidance and support

to plan language use, enhance vocabulary and develop relevant speaking skills. Teachers, in

turn, need materials and pedagogical knowledge to scaffold their students' learning process,

instead of leaving them to complete a speaking task on their own before moving to another.

Scaffolding in speaking is the process by which teachers provide helping activities to enable

learners to accomplish a speaking task which they would otherwise have been unable to do

well on their own. Scaffolding activities bring learners closer to a state where they can

eventually do the task well without teachers' help (Maybin, Mercer & Steirer 1992).

Scaffolding processes may also occur when learners receive assistance from other

interlocutors to clarify the meaning of what they are trying to express (Foster & Ohta 2005).

This article focuses on scaffolding processes that teachers can deliberately include when
 4

planning lessons on speaking. Appropriate scaffolding can increase learners' competence in

speaking, be it in relation to their application oflanguage knowledge such as grammar,

pronunciation and vocabulary or the use of skills and strategies relevant to task demands.

When they speak on their own during a task, language learners seldom have the capacity to

pay attention to all aspects of speech production because many of these complex processes

interact simultaneously. Rather than thinking about them and how different aspects of their

speech can be enhanced, learners are more likely to be concerned with getting their meaning

across as best as they can by using whatever linguistic and paralinguistic resources they have.

Teachers can include scaffolding activities in speaking lessons to help learners become aware

of the processes involved in speaking, thereby making these processes 'visible' to them. With

greater knowledge of the various aspects of speech production and experiencing the processes

personally, students will be more likely to complete the task at hand well and approach

similar tasks in future more confidently.

Scaffolding activities can be added on to regular speaking practice tasks to help

learners become aware of speech processes and perform better. Specifically, scaffolding

activities can assist learners in planning and organizing speech, and learn the language and

strategies for strengthening oral communication abilities. There is now a body of research

that offers insights into how teachers can scaffold the learning of speaking in class to improve

performance. For the purpose of this article I have identified three areas of research that have

direct implications for classroom practice: task repetition, pre-task planning and

communication strategies. Each of these areas is summarized to show how cognitive

(thinking and expressing) and social (interactional) processes in second language (L2)

speaking can be supported. Selected studies are highlighted and pedagogical principles are
 5

identified, after which I suggest how much of the research is getting through to teachers and

being taken up in day-to-day language teaching and explain why this state of affairs exists.

Application of research by teachers is likely to happen in four ways. The first is

through teaching materials that include perspectives from research findings. These consist of

published course books, supplementary enrichment materials or materials that are jointly

developed by or with teachers. The second way is through formal pre-service and in-service

teacher education programmes. The third way is when teachers have access to reports and

digests/summaries of research findings that set forth clear pedagogical applications. Finally,

application can occur through further studies. Teachers pursuing masters or doctoral

programmes can learn about current and seminal research and apply these research insights

into their own teaching upon completion of their studies.

I will discuss three areas of research application with respect to task repetition, pre-

task planning and communication strategies - where research in my view is not applied well,

where it is reasonably well applied, and where it may have been over-applied. I draw on my

20 years of experience as a teacher educator in Singapore, which has a bilingual education

system where English learning is compulsory for all students at primary (age 6 - 12 years)

and secondary (age 13-16 years) levels. I also include observations from my work with

hundreds of EFL teachers from the People's Republic of China who seek postgraduate ELT

certification and higher degree qualifications in my university each year. As will be seen,

there are a number of similarities between both groups of teachers but also some differences.

Where possible, I will also provide some observations from English course books used in

both countries.
 6

2. Research findings that have not been well applied

Task repetition

Task repetition is a procedure which requires learners to do a speaking task again either

immediately or at another time. It typically involves the repetition of the exact same task but

may also be a repetition of the same task procedure with different contents . The interval

could be minutes, a day or several days after the task is first carried out. This line of research

is motivated by the theory that speaking is the outcome of a number of cognitive processes,

as illustrated in Levelt's (1989) model of speech processing (see Bygate 1998, 2005).

According to this model, speech is the result of interactions of cognitive processes that plan

content (conceptualisation) and encode it using selected grammar and vocabulary

(formulation) with articulatory processes that enable these ideas to be expressed audibly

(articulation). When learners repeat a task they can integrate knowledge and skills used in the

first attempt into a repeat performance. Repeating an oral task is a form of mental rehearsal

which can minimize a person's cognitive load because rehearsal allows the speaker to re-use

parts of what they have planned and produced in the first task performance. This results in

partial automatization of some speech processes. When some mental processes are

automatized for a task, the individual no longer needs to pay attention to these processes and

their attention can be directed to other aspects of the task such as formulating utterances and

monitoring speech. As with all first attempts at any kind of learning task, a person will not be

able to give a complete and polished performance; there will be gaps, or even mistakes.

When language learners engage with a speaking task for the first time, they will experience

these challenges, more so because they have limited control over the lexical, grammatical and

phonological systems of the language.

 7

Positive effects of task repetition on L2 speaking performance have been reported in a

number of studies on learners of different ages. Learners who had opportunities to repeat a

task were able to build on earlier experiences to produce more accurate and idiomatic speech

(Bygate 1996, 2001), and better framing of the narratives or stories (Bygate & Samuda 2005).

They show improved pragmatic knowledge in making polite requests (Takimoto, 2012) and

overall improved fluency (Bygate 1996; Ahmadian & Tavakoli 2011; Bei 2013; Thai &

Boers 2015; Lambert, Kormos & Minn 2016,), As a pedagogic tool, task repetition has been

shown to help direct learners' attention towards form in the repeat performance if some form-

focused activity preceded it (Hawkes 2012). While repeating a task once improved

metalinguistic knowledge about selected grammar rules, it was insufficient for learners to

proceduralise the knowledge in oral tasks (van de Guchte, Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam & Bimmel

2016). Nevertheless, there are indications that repeating a task allowed learners to focus more

on form and less on content (Fukuta 2016).

Learners who were asked to repeat similar tasks involving the same procedures but

different content (i.e. task-type repetition) showed increased syntactic complexity (Kim &

Tracy-Ventura, 2013) while those who repeated the same procedure with slight variations in

content showed increased vocabulary use and accuracy in grammar and pronunciation as well

as frequent occurrences of self-monitoring and corrections (Lynch & Maclean 2000, 2001 ).

In recognition and production of forms ofrequest, learners who repeated identical tasks

demonstrated greater improvements than those who repeated similar types of tasks

(Takimoto, 2012). Improved performances as a result of task repetition were likely due to the

way 'previous experience of a specific task aids speakers to shift their attention from

processing the message content to working on formulations of the message' (Bygate 2001, p.
 8

44). For task repetition to have a more lasting impact on efficient speech performance,

learners may need to repeat a task not just once but as many as five times, but the frequency

may vary according to the communication tasks and discourse genres {Lambert et al. 2016).

Repeating the same task many times over several months has also been shown to have some

transfer effects on a new task (Ahmadian 2011 ).

Task repetition holds promise for helping learners improve speaking performance, but

in my view very little of this research has found its way into teaching materials and lesson

procedures in English classrooms in both Singapore and Chinese. Speaking activities often

take the form of learners talking in small groups or pairs with the teacher supervising them.

These activities may be there only to serve a 'higher' purpose of providing content and ideas

for reading and writing activities. Activities such as brainstorming and discussions, while

allowing learners to practice their oral skills, are often used as a means of generating ideas for

writing or activating prior knowledge or schema for a reading comprehension text. Even

when the activities are used for the dedicated purpose of improving speaking, they are likely

to be 'one-off events. In my personal experience, I have yet to see a speaking task in the

course books at any level and context that is repeated either in its entirety or in part for the

explicit purpose of reaping the benefits indicated by research.

My conversations with teachers from both Singapore and China confirm this.

Typically, a speaking activity is carried out once, and the outcomes are either presented to the

rest of the class or used as input for the next stage of the language lesson. Sometimes teacher

feedback is given to the learners. Teachers from Singapore and China seem to consider

speaking activities to be PRACTICE activities rather than LEARNING activities. The adage

'practice makes perfect' is a commonly held belief and the teachers interpret it as giving

learners various speaking tasks in class so that with time they will eventually become fluent
 9

speakers of English. Some teachers also feel that once an oral communication act is

performed, there is little point in repeating it. Unlike writing, where working on drafts is seen

to be a natural process, speaking is perceived to be transient. Thus when it comes to speaking

pedagogy, the same perception holds. Students are encouraged to do their best when carrying

out a speaking task but teachers then seem to believe that not much needs to be done by way

of helping them once the task is completed, apart from giving learners some feedback on their

performance. Teachers in both countries have told me that some kinds of speech necessitate

planning and rehearsal (for example, preparing for an oral presentation), while other kinds of

oral interaction such as role plays and information gap tasks do not. Furthermore, the idea of

repetition is viewed cautiously by teachers because they think their students might find it

boring, as the element of novelty is lost after the first performance. They fear that students

who do not know the rationale for task repetition will also see it as a waste of time.

Another reason why many teachers do not repeat a speaking task may simply have to

do with the fact that they are not aware of these research findings, which are still relatively

new. In Singapore a packed teacher education curriculum means that pre-service teachers are

exposed to a highly selective range of theoretical perspectives that are directly related to the

national English Language curriculum. For example, in the past, theoretical rationales for

communicative language teaching methods and knowledge about genre or text types have

been emphasized to develop trainee teachers ' abilities to deliver the curriculum. Pre-service

teachers also tend to prefer learning methods and techniques that they can apply immediately

when they plan lessons to knowing about research findings. Their priority is to learn how to

use text book activities effectively rather than read research articles where pedagogical

implications may not be immediately clear or relevant to their situation. A number of

experienced teachers doing their Master' s degrees in my university who were introduced to
 10

research findings on the positive effects of task repetition expressed surprise to me that they

had never considered repeating any speaking tasks as a way of scaffolding learning. As the

idea of task repetition has also not been taken up by text book writers in general, the chances

of teachers repeating speaking practice activities in an English classroom are extremely low

and may remain so unless specific interventions in teacher professional development are

carried out.

The lack of awareness about the relevance of task repetition is similarly found among

teachers from China. In Chinese EFL classrooms where principles of communicative

language teaching are embraced, learner talk is encouraged through pair or group work.

However, due to large class size at the college level, such oral activities are often difficult to

conduct and even more challenging to monitor. Requiring students to repeat oral tasks would

be a challenge for most teachers who find that maintaining motivation for engagement with

tasks is paramount. The main challenge, however, is that many EFL teachers in China lack

adequate knowledge and skills for teaching speaking, let alone the time and skills required to

read the latest research findings (Chen & Goh 2014). Nevertheless, some attempts are being

made to promote the insights gained from task repetition research for speaking pedagogy. In

a publication for language teacher' s professional learning widely available in the Singapore

and Asian region, I proposed a four-stage model for speaking instruction (Goh 2007).

Repetition of tasks is carried out in the final stage as ' further practice' following the first

three stages of 'pre-speaking support' , 'meaning-oriented activity' and ' language-focused

activity' (p. 24). This idea of enhancing spoken performance through repeating a task was

articulated in greater detail in the Teaching Speaking Cycle pedagogical model (Goh & Bums

2012). In both proposed models, task repetition is done after learners have had a chance to

examine the language, skills or strategies required for the task just completed. After the
 11

repeat performance, learners reflect on and self-assess their performance before receiving

feedback from their teacher or peers. By asking students to repeat a task, teachers provide

implicit scaffolding through increasing students ' awareness about language and skills, but

more importantly, give them a chance to 'rehearse' their performance so that they can

achieve better results the second or even third time.

3. Research findings that have been reasonably well applied

Pre-task planning

As noted earlier, speaking in a new language can be daunting for language learners and cause

them anxiety and other debilitating emotions even for routine speaking activities. The need

to conceptualise, formulate and articulate their thoughts often takes up so much cognitive

space in their working memory that language learners can focus on very few things

adequately. Their attention will typically be directed at how to get their meaning across (Van

Patten 1990; Skehan 1998) and less is directed at formulating grammatical utterances. So a

simple task of telling a story or narrating something that happened can be a challenge. Their

speech may be halting, incomplete and limited in ideas or content. Any attempt at articulating

richer ideas may create even more grammatical and lexical errors.

Like task repetition, the rationale for pre-task planning is based on a cognitive

approach to language learning (Skehan 1998) and L2 speaking development (Segalowitz

2010). Giving learners time to plan before a task to think of what to say and how to say it

helps to free up attentional space during speaking for articulation of ideas, speech monitoring

and self-repairs. Skehan (1998) summarised the main benefits of pre-task planning as

follows: improved complexity in selected tasks, more complex content as a result of deeper

interpretation of task demands, more experimentation with forms to express complex ideas,
 12

better self-monitoring during task performance and all round improved fluency. He also

explained the pedagogical purposes of a pre-task phase which include introducing or teaching

new language, enabling learners to reorganise their developing linguistic knowledge,

activating existing linguistic knowledge, recycling specific language items, easing processing

load and pushing learners to interpret tasks in more demanding ways (p. 137-139).

Classroom research has shown positive effects of pre-task planning on language

complexity and fluency, particularly in monologic tasks (e.g. Ellis 1987; Foster & Skehan

1996; Skehan & Foster 1997, 2005; Mehnert 1998; Ortega 1999; Yuan & Ellis 2003).

Learners who planned with a partner, individually or were guided by a teacher all performed

significantly better at oral tasks than those who did no planning (Geng & Ferguson 2013).

When learners were provided with models of interaction as part of a planning strategy, they

outperformed their peers who had unguided planning time in their attention to question forms

and question development (Kim 2013). Research has also examined 'strategic planning', that

is strategy training prior to a speaking task (Ellis 2005 , p. 3). Learners who engaged in

strategic planning were able to apply strategies during on-line planning (during a speaking

task) and produced more fluent speech compared with those who did not receive any pre-task

strategy training (Seifoori & Vahidi 2012). (See also the discussion of communication

strategies in the next section.)

In contrast to the positive results in the above mentioned studies, findings from

language testing research suggest that learners did not benefit as much from planning before a

test. One such study that examined the effects of one minute or two minutes of planning time

found no significant difference in terms of scores and discourse quality of fluency, accuracy

and accuracy (Wigglesworth & Elder 2010). The researchers concurred with the view that

stressful contexts of testing could prevent test takers from enjoying the benefits of planning
 13

demonstrated in classroom research (Ellis 2005) and that the short planning time might have

been insufficient for planning to have any effect. In another study where test-takers were

given 3 minutes of planning time in a paired format, they produced longer turns particularly

at the beginning of the interaction but their fluency appeared to have been hampered by their

attempts at recalling what they had planned to say (Nitta & Nakatsuhara 2014). Planning also

appeared to have limited effect on the test-takers ' performance scores.

It is very likely that many teachers in Singapore and China have not read about the

research highlighted above. Nevertheless, in my experience they are familiar with the idea of

giving students time to plan before a speaking task. They have carried out pre-task planning

at one time or another in their English lessons, for example when a task is deemed to be

challenging, they generally agree that planning benefits their students. Text books for upper

primary and secondary students in Singapore have planning activities that precede more

formal speaking activities, such as making a presentation to a group or the class. As many

teachers still follow prescribed activities in text books quite closely, the use of pre-task

planning is probably practiced as often as it appears in these books . Another possible reason

for teachers ' use of pre-task planning is that they see it as logical that students need time to

prepare for a highly visible task such as making a speech or a presentation. This is especially

true for presentation activities where developing knowledge about content is required.

Students are given time to research a topic, prepare the presentation and rehearse it.

Planning time is provided for during oral examinations in Singapore at both primary

and secondary levels. For example, in the ' O ' level oral examination for secondary school

students, candidates are given about 10 minutes to prepare how they will read aloud a given

passage and converse with the examiners. Students have been coached by their teachers on

how to use the planning time to practice segmenting the text and pausing at appropriate
 14

places, as well as rehearsing the sounds of unfamiliar words. They also use the time to plan

what they can talk about in the second part of the exam where candidates have to converse

with the examiner on a topic related to the theme in the picture. Teachers from China also

report using pre-task planning whenever possible, but especially in test-taking situations

where planning time is seen as fair and helpful to the candidates. The findings emerging from

research on planning for oral tests should therefore be of interest to teachers.

While teachers include pre-task planning in their lesson sequences, my view is that

they may not fully appreciate the theoretical underpinnings of the procedure or the relative

effects of guided and unguided planning time. As many teachers may be unfamiliar with the

construct of speaking and in particular the various aspects of speech production, they are

unable to apply theory to an understanding of the challenges that learners face when required

to attend concurrently to meaning and form. Therefore even though pre-task planning is a

common practice for helping students prepare for oral exams and formal presentations,

teachers ' motivation for using it may in fact have little to do with their familiarity with

research findings that have been published. More importantly, speaking lessons should

include pre-task planning time as a means of helping learners speak more fluently and

accurately during a task. Thus, instead of getting students to begin a task immediately,

teachers can set aside some planning time so that students can prepare the ideas and the

vocabulary that can help them during the interaction that follows. Pre-task planning time can

also be supported with prompts or guides so that students can use the planning time well, as

research has indicated that unguided planning time has less impact on performance compared

with guided and teacher-led planning .

 15

4. Research findings that may have been over applied

Communication Strategies

Language learners have limited processing capacity due to constraints of time and

interactional contexts when thinking of what to say and how to say it. They may face

challenges in finding the most suitable words or constructing utterances that are grammatical.

In addition, they may face listening comprehension problems that impair their participation in

face-to-face communication (Goh 2000). Their ability to use communication strategies (CSs)

is an important component of their communicative competence (Canale & Swain 1980). CSs

are important in both first (Ll) and second language interactions, but they are particularly

useful to learners who have yet to master a language well. As Hughes (2013) observed,

language learners need strategies that can help them buy processing time so as to maintain

their tum in an interaction. A learner's strategic competence can compensate for disruptions

in communication problems due to language problems and enhance the effectiveness of face-

to-face communication (Bialystok 1983; Canale 1983; Faerch & Kasper 1983, 1984;

Nakatani 2005 ). In other words, CSs are an important resource for meeting both cognitive

and social demands in face-to-face interactions.

CSs have psycholinguistic and interactional functions that can help learners address

lexical and discourse problems that arise during an interaction (Nakatani & Goh 2007). CSs

can also help learners manage listening problems. These include comprehension checks,

confirmation checks and clarification requests, which are all signals that the listener or the

speaker has encountered a linguistic problem and seeks to resolve it. Meaning negotiation

through the use of interactional strategies can also have a positive effect on language

acquisition (Pica 2002) because it can potentially generate modified comprehensible output

(Swain 1985, 1995). The use of CSs by EFL learners has also been found to promote
 16

accuracy of language use and maintain conversation flow even when no obvious

communication problems exist (Williams, Inscoe & Tasker 1997; Jamshidnejad 2011). Test

takers' success has also been partly attributed to the use of interaction strategies they have

been taught for maintaining fluency and negotiating meaning (Nakatani 2005). As learners

generally lack adequate vocabulary for communication, they require strategies to overcome

these lexical gaps. Paraphrase was found to be the most frequently used strategy to convey

meaning in vocabulary explanation tasks while clarification request was most common in

interaction tasks (Mei & Nathalang 2010). A similar strategy, appealing for assistance, was

found to have benefited learners as it enabled them to prolong a conversation thereby getting

more opportunities to negotiate meaning (Maleki 2007). Variations in the use of

compensation strategies related to learning styles have been suggested (Littlemore 2003).

Focused CS instruction can help learners develop the quantity and quality of CS use

(Dornyei 1995) even though gains in language use may not always be immediate. . In one

study, learners who had received CS instruction on how to use the compensation strategy of

paraphrasing could apply such strategies well to achieve their communication goals, but their

overall task performance scores were not significantly better than those who did not receive

strategy instruction (Rossiter 2003). In another study, however, learners ' who were taught

both psycholinguistic and interactional CSs were able to maintain their conversations and

achieved better overall speaking test performance than those who received no instruction

(Maleki 2007). Strategy instruction contributed to test takers ' success because CSs enabled

them to be more fluent and engage better in negotiating meaning (Nakatani 2005).

CS research, which began more than three decades ago, was one of the earliest lines

of inquiry related to L2 learners' speaking abilities. It is perhaps owing to this long research

tradition that the importance of CSs has reached more teachers, teacher educators and
 17

material developers. It is not uncommon to find language text books that incorporate some

CSs as part of learner training and at least one study has shown such kinds of materials to be

effective in developing learners' speaking abilities (Maleki 2007). The learning of CSs is not

a new feature of the English curriculum in Singapore. Two previous English Language

syllabuses in the 1990s and 2000s emphasized the importance of learners' interactional

competence to language acquisition, self-confidence, participation in learning and

intercultural communication (Ang 2000; Lim 2000). The focus on effective language use in

communication continues into the present syllabus in which the ability to 'use appropriate

skills, strategies and language to convey and construct meaning during interactions' is a key

learning outcome for both primary and secondary students (Curriculum Planning and

Development Division 2008, p. 54).

The relevance of CSs to speaking performance is, to my mind, something that many

Singaporean and Chinese teachers are most familiar with. It is also an area of speaking that

teachers believe to be important for their students and is the most pervasive form of help that

students get in today's classrooms. Key syllabus documents in both countries that include

strategies for language use further reinforce the teachers' personal beliefs of the importance

of CSs. Most of the teachers I have taught or spoken with have told me that they frequently

encouraged students to use these strategies when talking in pairs or groups because they

believed CSs will improve their students' performance. English text books in Singapore and

China often include lists of formulaic expressions that learners can use to seek clarification or

repetition. Teachers are therefore supported by readily available CS materials in course books

to help them teach the language that learners need for different contexts and levels of

formality.
 18

CSs also serve as important test-taking strategies, which can facilitate better

performance during test conditions (Cohen 2006). It is in this context of the washback effects

of oral examinations that CS research findings may most obviously be said to be 'over-

applied'. For example, when students cannot remember or do not know a word in English,

they are advised by their teachers to continue talking by using words they know. Although

the terminology for CSs is not stated, what the teachers are in fact teaching students is to use

paraphrase and approximation to compensate for lack of lexical knowledge. Scoring rubrics

for speaking tests often refer to the use of paraphrase and other facilitation strategies in a

positive way. Some examiners in Singapore have also stated that they would expect

candidates to maintain smooth conversations by using strategies such as circumlocution

(Ang-Aw 2010). This is also the reason why teachers frequently encourage students to use

strategies to compensate for lexical gaps.

Teachers ' understanding of the benefits of CS use appears to be narrowly focused on

its compensatory effects when there are problems with vocabulary and not its potential for

language development through spoken interaction in and out of class. As I see it, the potential

of CS use leading to modified comprehensible output is something that many English

teachers may not know about or understand. It is probably because of a lack of understanding

of the importance of negotiation of meaning and psycholinguistic support for learners, that

few speaking lessons actually develop these processes explicitly. Therefore, there remains a

need to help teachers understand the theoretical implications of CSs for language learning so

that they can plan lessons where speaking and language development can be scaffolded

through the use of CSs by students and with their teachers.

 19

5. Conclusion

Speaking activities are important in many English classrooms that are guided by principles of

communicative language teaching. Despite research findings on how certain procedures can

enhance speaking performance, speaking classrooms tend to proceed quite independently of

these insights. Task repetition is hardly ever encouraged in the classroom and pre-task

planning is carried out mainly for oral presentations or talks, but rarely for informal group or

pair speaking activities. On the other hand, the use of communication strategies receives

relatively more attention because it is included in most recent language course books. It

seems most often presented as a way of improving test performance, but more systematic

strategy instruction for day-to-day communication still appears to be lacking. For example,

other than advising students to use paraphrase, a strategy that may come naturally to many

people, teachers can focus on teaching language in space-holding formulae ('Let me see now,

how would I put that. .. ' , ' That's really interesting .. . ').

Teaching of speaking in language classrooms in Singapore and China presents many

challenges. One such challenge has to do with teachers' own pedagogical knowledge and

skills. It seems clear to me that some teachers still lack confidence when it comes to planning

and conducting speaking and listening lessons, and speaking is often seen as less important

compared with reading and writing because of public examinations which are still weighted

more heavily towards reading and writing (Goh 2005; Chen & Goh 2011). Like busy teachers

in general, they have few opportunities to learn about the latest research findings and

research-informed pedagogical principles. Furthermore, their classes tend to be large and

opportunities for students to talk are often limited. Classes in many Singapore primary and

secondary schools generally have 30 - 40 children so teachers may find it challenging to

conduct and monitor speaking tasks. This challenge is even greater for college EFL classes in
 20

China where each class can be as large as 60-80 students. I have noted that many Chinese

EFL teachers remain unaware of many theoretical concepts for speaking development and

lacked opportunities to learn new ways of teaching speaking.

This situation may be changing, however. Over the years, I have seen a growing

interest among teachers from both Singapore and China in learning how to teach speaking

systematically. This is in part due to curricular innovations which place greater emphasis on

speaking and give more weighting for spoken English components in public examinations, as

in the case of Singapore. In the EFL context of China, learners have to speak English well for

better academic and career opportunities in a globalized world, and it seems to me that new

syllabuses for English reflect this emphasis. Continual improvements to teacher preparation

and professional development in both countries also mean further strengthening of the

research/theory - practice nexus.

For teachers to teach speaking better t ey need an understanding of the construct of

speaking competence. They need to understand cognitive demands of speech processing as

well as the skills, strategies and discourse routines that are needed for smooth and meaningful

oral communication. With this understanding teachers can create tasks to scaffold processes

for learning to speak a second language. This will then help students achieve greater

automaticity over time in order to produce speech that is fluent, accurate and appropriate. It

is also important that teachers develop a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the

potential of interaction for language acquisition. This can motivate teachers to spend more

time on speaking tasks or make use of other opportunities to promote the learning of

speaking.

Current speaking pedagogies still tend to focus on getting students to speak but pay

little attention to cognitive and social processes that enable effective monologic and dialogic
 21

oral communication. Each of the three areas of research highlighted in this article offers

valuable insights for enhancing practice. While these findings should be further examined

through studies that point out implications for practice, there is also room for greater teacher

involvement in validating these claims through classroom inquiry (Bums 2010). Teachers can

take greater ownership of their pedagogy and explore these new possibilities by carrying out

small classroom inquiry projects to 'pressure test' the findings of academic research

conducted in environments that may not always represent authentic classroom ecology. This

is something that teachers in Singapore in particular can do because of recent efforts in

increasing teachers ' classroom inquiry capacities (Ministry of Education 2008).

Research in speaking should continue to improve our understanding of how student

learning can be supported through enhanced speaking pedagogies. One line of research is to

examine the effectiveness of interventions through task repetition and pre-task planning on

language learners ' metacognitive processes. Metacognitive processes can develop greater

self-regulation for out-of-class learning through planning, monitoring and evaluation. They

can also increase knowledge about discourse routines and help language learners become

familiar with genres or types of spoken texts according to contexts of interaction. Another

direction is to examine the affordances of new media through technology. While technology

has been exploited for some time now for speaking, its role tends to be limited to

pronunciation drills and other types of form-focused instruction. It is worthwhile for

researchers to consider how technology can be harnessed not just for practicing speaking but

also providing cognitive support in thinking and planning for learners during speech

processing as well as developing discourse skills for face-to-face interactions. Findings from

these studies can make significant contributions to the current discussions of teaching
 22

speaking and development of effective pedagogies that can scaffold learning processes that

would otherwise be overlooked in a speaking class.

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments from Anne Burns and Pauline Foster. Any

remaining errors are entirely mine.

References

Ahmadian, M. J. (2011). The effect of 'massed' task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and

fluency: does it transfer to a new task? The Language Learning Journal 39.3 , 269-

280.

Ahmadian, M. J. & M. Tavakoli (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online

planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners'

oral production. Language Teaching Research 15.1 , 23-49.

Ang, M. Y. (2000). Developments in the English Language curriculum in Singapore.

Teaching ofEnglish Language and Literature (TELL) Journal 16.2, 3- 8.

Ang-Aw, H. T. (2010). Rater judgment on the conversation task for ' O' level students in

Singapore. Masters dissertation. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Bei, G. X. (2013). Effects of immediate repetition in L2 speaking tasks : a focused study.

English Language Teaching 6.1 , 11- 19.

Bialystok, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication

strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (eds.), Strategies in interlanguage

communication. London: Longman, 100-118.

 23

Burns, A. (2010) . Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for

practitioners. New York, N.Y: Routledge.

Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of

learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching.

Oxford: Heinemann, 136-146.

Bygate, M. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on speaking. Annual Review ofApplied

Linguistics 18, 20-42.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In

M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second

language learning, teaching, and testing. Harrow: Pearson Education, 23-48.

Bygate, M. (2005). Oral second language abilities as expertise. In K. Johnson (ed.), Expertise

in second language learning and teaching Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 104- 127.

Bygate, M. & V. Samuda (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In

R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language .Amsterdam:

John Benjamins, 37- 74.

Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In Oller, J. W. Jr. (ed.),

Issues in language testing research. Rowley MA: Newbury House, 333- 342.

Canale, M. & M. Swain (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1.1 , 1-47.

Chen, Z. & C.C.M. Goh (2011). Teaching oral English in higher education: challenges to

EFL teachers. Teaching in Higher Education 16.3, 1- 13.

 24

Chen, Z. & C. C. M. Goh (2014). Teacher knowledge about oral English instruction and

teacher profiles: An EFL perspective. Teacher Development: An International

Journal of Teachers' Professional Development 18.1 , 81- 99.

Cohen, A.D. (2006). The coming age ofresearch on test-taking strategies. Language

Assessment Quarterly 3.4, 307- 331.

Curriculum Planning and Development Division (2008). English Language Sy llabus 2010.

Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly 29. 1,

55-85.

Ellis, R. (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style in the use of the past

tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9 .1. 1- 19.

Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Faerch, C. & G. Kasper (1983). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage

production. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (eds.), Strategies in interlanguage

communication. London: Longman, 210-238.

Faerch, C. & G. Kasper (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language

Learning 34.1, 45- 63 .

Foster, P. & P. Skehan (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based

learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18.3, 299- 324.

Foster, P. & A. S. Ohta (2005) . Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in classroom

language tasks. Applied Linguistics 26.3 , 402-430.

Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners' attention orientation in L2 oral

production. Language Teaching Research 20.3, 321-340.

 25

Geng, X., & G. Ferguson (2013). Strategic planning in task-based language teaching: The

effects of participatory structure and task type. System 41.1 , 982-993.

Goh, C. C. M . (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening

comprehension problems. System 28 .1, 55- 75.

Goh, C.C. M. (2005). Oracy development in literacy-privileged learning environments: Too

little, too late? In J. Foley (ed.). New dimensions in the teaching of oral

communication. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 92- 110.

Goh, C. C. M. (2007). Teaching speaking in the language classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO

Regional Language Centre.

Goh, C. C. M . & A. Burns (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Hawkes, M . L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form.

ELT Journal 66.3 , 327- 336.

Hughes, R. (2013). Teaching and researching: speaking. New York, Routledge.

Jamshidnejad, A. (2011). Functionalapproach to communication strategies: An analysis of

language learners ' performance in interactional discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 43 .

15, 3757- 3769.

Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modelling on attention to form and question development.

TESOL Quarterly 47.1, 8-35.

Kim, Y., & N. Tracy-Ventura (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance

development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System 41.3 ,

829-840.
 26

Lambert, C ., J. Kormos, & D. Minn (2016). Task repetition and second language speech

processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

doi:10.1017/S0272263116000085

Levelt, W. J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press.

Lim, C. S. (2000). The English Language Syllabus 2001: Change and continuity. Teaching of

English Language and Literature (TELL) Journal 16.2, 9- 14.

Littlemore, J. (2003). The communicative effectiveness of different types of communication

strategy. System, 31.3 , 331-347.

Lynch, T. & J. Maclean (2000) . Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for

classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research Special Issue: Tasks in

Language Pedagogy, 4.3 , 221 - 250.

Lynch, T & J. Maclean (2001) ' A case of exercising' : Effects of immediate task repetition on

learners ' performance. In M. Bygate, P . Skehan & M . Swain (eds.) Researching

pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson

Education, 141- 162.

Maleki, A. (2007). Teachability of communication strategies: An Iranian experience. System

35.4, 583-594.

Maybin, J., N . Mercer, & B. Steirer (1992). ' Scaffolding' learning in the classroom. In K.

Norman (ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Curriculum Project.

London: Hodder and Stoughton for the National Curriculum Council, London, 186-

195.

Mehnert, U. (1998) . The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language

performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20.1 , 83- 108.

 27

Mei, A., & S. Nathalang (2010). Use of communication strategies by Chinese EFL learners.

Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 33.3, 110-125.

Ministry of Education. (January, 2008). More support for school's 'Teach Less Learn More'

initiatives [Press release]. Retrieved from

http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2008/01/more-support-for-schools-teach.php.

Nakatani, Y. (2005) . The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication

strategy use. The Modern Language Journal 89, 76- 91.

Nakatani, Y. & C. Goh (2007). A review of oral communication strategies: Focus on

interactionist and psycholinguistic perspectives. In A. Cohen (ed.), Language learner

strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

207- 227.

Nitta, R., & F. Nakatsuhara (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task

planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing 31.2, 147-175.

Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 21.1, 109- 148.

Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic

needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal 86, 1- 19.

Rossiter, M. J. I. (2003). It's like a chicken but bigger: Effects of communication strategy in

the ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 60.2, 105- 121.

Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency . New York: Taylor &

Francis.

Seifoori, Z. & Z. Vahidi (2012). The impact of fluency strategy training on Iranian EFL

learners' speech under on line planning conditions. Language Awareness 21 .1-2, 101-

112
 28

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Skehan, P. & P. Foster (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on

foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1.3 , 185- 211.

Skehan, P. & P. Foster (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise

information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (ed.),

Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamin,

193- 216.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development. In S. M . Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input

in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235- 253.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language acquisition. In G. Cook & B.

Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 125- 144.

Takimoto, M. (2012). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task-type

repetition on learners' recognition and production of second language request

downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics 9 .1 , 71-96.

Thai, C. , & F. Boers. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects

on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly 50.2, 369- 393 .

Van de Guchte, M., M., Braaksma, G. Rijlaarsdam & P. Bimmel (2016). Focus on form

through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research 20.3, 300-320.

VanPatten, B. (1990) . Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 12.3, 287- 301.

 29

Wigglesworth, G. & C. Elder (2010). An investigation of the effective and validity of

planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly 7 .1, 1- 24.

Williams, J., R. Inscoe & T. Tasker (1997). Communication strategies in an interactional

context: The mutual achievement of comprehension. In G Kasper & E. Kellerman,

(eds.), Communication strategies, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives.

Essex: Longman, 304-322.

Yuan, F. & R. Ellis (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency,

complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24.1,

1- 27.