Module 6

Promoting the Development of Speaking Skills

This module is divided into the following sections:

Outcomes

Author of this module 

6.0  Introduction  

6.1  The objectives of oral work 
	6.1.1  Who teaches speaking?
	6.1.2  What does teaching speaking mean?
		6.1.2.1  Speaking means integration
		6.1.2.2  Speaking means conversation
		6.1.2.3  Speaking means natural output
	6.1.3  How SLA research informs the teaching of oral skills
6.1.4  How does an oral class differ from any skills class?

6.2  Learner perceptions and learner strategies 
	6.2.1  Reasons underlying poor motivation
		6.2.1.1  Inhibitions
		6.2.1.2  Absence of purpose
	6.2.2  Students’ views
	6.2.3  What tutors can do to help
		6.2.3.1  Reduce communicative stress
		6.2.3.2  Don’t fear silence
		6.2.3.3  Create realistic goals
		6.2.3.4  Correct errors sensitively
		6.2.3.5  Communication strategies

6.3  Classroom techniques for developing speaking skills 
	6.3.1  What is appropriate for different levels
	6.3.2  Working from a video stimulus
		6.3.2.1  Further sources for video work
	6.3.3  Working from an audio stimulus
	6.3.4  Working from a written stimulus
	6.3.5  Working from a picture stimulus
	6.3.6  Mixed-level groups

6.4  Pronunciation
	6.4.1  Should pronunciation be taught?
	6.4.2  What does teaching pronunciation involve?
	6.4.3  Pronunciation activities
	6.4.4  Ways to encourage pronunciation practice

6.5  Encouraging the development of oral skills outside the classroom 
	6.5.1  Students’ views on practising speaking skills
	6.5.2  Creating opportunities to meet native speakers
	6.5.3  ‘Talking to myself’
	6.5.4  Stand-alone multimedia resources

6.6  Assessment of oral skills 
	6.6.1  What should be assessed
	6.6.2  Alternative forms of assessment
	6.6.3  Having realistic expectations
	6.6.4  Ensuring progression
		6.6.4.1  Assessing the difficulty of a task
		6.6.4.2  Measuring linguistic progression
	6.6.5  Ensuring equality across candidates
 
6.7  Summary

6.8  Commentary on activities

6.9  Appendices
	Appendix 1  How to reduce communicative stress
	Appendix 2  Guidelines for videoed group presentation
	Appendix 3  Institute of Linguists’ oral proficiency criteria 
	Appendix 4a  Sample mark sheet for an oral examination
Appendix 4b  Sample mark sheet for an oral presentation
Appendix 4c  Sample mark sheet for group oral presentation 

6.10  References

6.11  Recommended further reading

6.12  Assessment task

Outcomes

By the end of this module you should be able to:

•	distinguish the key issues surrounding the teaching of speaking skills;
•	appreciate why students often find oral classes stressful;
•	identify ways to reduce pressures on students which inhibit participation;
•	devise teaching tasks for oral work at different levels;
•	select materials in a variety of media to use as support for speaking tasks;
•	adopt strategies for dealing with mixed-level groups;
•	provide ways to help students extend speaking skills outside class time;
•	choose assessment tasks to fit your courses;
•	apply assessment criteria appropriately.

Author of this module

Until September 2002, Dr. Emma Tyler was a language tutor in the Department of French Studies (Centre for European Languages and Culture) at the University of Birmingham. She was responsible for developing and delivering second- and final-year language programmes to post-A level undergraduates, and held joint responsibility for the coordination of language delivery across all four years. She now works freelance as a writer, translator and researcher.

6.0  Introduction
Speaking is perhaps the most demanding of the four skills, both for the learner and for the teacher. It is also one which is often overlooked, and yet, as Bygate argues (1987: vii):

Our learners often need to be able to speak with confidence in order to carry out many of their most basic transactions. It is the skill by which they are most frequently judged, and through which they may make or lose friends. It is the vehicle par excellence of social solidarity, of social ranking, of professional advancement and of business. It is also a medium through which much language is learnt, and which for many is particularly conducive for learning.

This module aims to encourage higher education teachers to consider the place and role of speaking skills in the foreign language curriculum. It will look at the purpose of teaching oral skills, examine the perceptions of students regarding their spoken language, consider ways of developing speaking skills both inside and outside the classroom, and develop issues surrounding assessment of oral work. 

6.1  The objectives of oral work
This section looks at the teaching of oral skills from the perspective of the tutor. It may be that you have already hesitated to read this module, on the basis that you have no involvement with oral classes. Many departments offer whole-language courses, adopting a completely integrative approach, but many more have language courses with separate ‘oral expression’ classes, taught entirely by a native speaker, often a colloquial assistant. This first activity invites you to reflect on the current practice within your institution (or indeed within your own department, as of course practice often varies from department to department), and on your own beliefs relating to the teaching of speaking.

Activity 1

Which of these statements apply to the beliefs that inform current practice in your department / institution, and which to your own beliefs?

•	Speaking should always be taught by a native speaker.
•	A class conducted in the target language (TL) is not necessarily an ‘oral’ class.
•	Speaking skills should not be integrated with other skills.
•	Speaking requires no special skills, unlike written language.
•	Speaking and listening go hand in hand so should be taught together.
•	It really isn’t necessary to ‘teach’ speaking.
•	It is not possible to ‘teach’ speaking skills.

6.1.1  Who teaches speaking?
In the traditional language department, especially at more advanced levels, the colloquial assistant conducts the ‘oral expression’ classes. This is a useful system which offers certain advantages:
•	the teaching groups are often smaller;
•	the assistants are usually enthusiastic;
•	the assistants represent an on-tap resource, forging a close link  with the target country (since in most cases they are only ‘on loan’ to the L1 country for a single academic year).
This latter point is most important, as native-speaker staff who have been resident in the first language (L1) country for many years, by their own admission, often feel a certain distance from their native country, and occasionally find themselves at a loss when asked to provide up-to-the-minute vocabulary.
However, the colloquial assistant system has concomitant problems:
•	the staff concerned often have little or no teaching experience;
•	they require close and frequent monitoring;
•	they are close in age to the students themselves, which may bring attendant discipline problems;
•	students may have the tendency to take oral classes less seriously, having the perception that oral skills have less value since they are not taught by a permanent member of staff;
•	colloquial assistants require a lot of guidance in what to teach and how to teach it.
Tutors working in a department that operates a colloquial assistant scheme will still probably be involved in small-group teaching on literary, social and cultural courses where, with post-A level students, participation in the TL may be expected. If a cultural studies seminar is being conducted in the TL, this surely means that, to a certain extent at least, speaking skills are being ‘taught’, since: 
•	tutors need to think about ways in which all students can be encouraged to participate; 
•	there may be error correction from the tutor (whether solicited or not);
•	student performance is being measured, if only by participants’ ability to communicate their message to others;
•	there may be an element of formal testing involving spoken language.
This is why I have called this module ‘promoting the development of speaking skills’. It contains useful ideas relevant both to language-based classes and content-based classes, where language development might be considered a side-issue.
Now we’ve established this, we will move on to what teaching (or promoting) speaking skills actually means.

6.1.2  What does teaching speaking mean?
6.1.2.1  Speaking means integration
Those with any classroom experience will recognize the impossibility of maintaining the pace of an oral class for one hour with no stimulus (written, audio, video). To a certain extent speaking always has to be a skill integrated with listening, just as reading goes hand-in-hand with writing, and there are always further crossovers between skills. Assessing reading, for example, usually requires some form of written or spoken production in order to measure comprehension, as does assessing listening. This is why Brumfit (1984: 70) reclassified  the four skills as:
1.	conversation / discussion;
2.	comprehension;
3.	extended writing;
4.	extended speaking.
This imitates more precisely what people actually do with language, which is, to a large extent, what we are trying to replicate in a student of modern languages.

6.1.2.2  Speaking means conversation
If we bear Brumfit’s comments in mind, we see that spoken language classes ought to focus largely on conversation / discussion and perhaps extended speaking (for example, giving a presentation or speech on a given theme, which, as he points out, may only be appropriate to more advanced levels). As Brown and Yule suggest, these activities are difficult to achieve and are often avoided:

Spoken language production, learning to talk in the foreign language, is often considered to be one of the most difficult aspects of language learning for the teacher to help the student with. […] In the production of speech […] each speaker needs to speak. He needs to speak individually and, ideally, he needs someone to listen to him speaking and to respond to him. When he speaks, he makes a noise which will disturb other students unless they are saying the same thing at the same time, or unless they are listening to what he says. The possible ways of coping with this seem to be limited. You find choral practice of language which is written down, or learned, or which copies an immediately preceding model. You find students giving individual short responses to the teacher’s question. You find students working with language lab courses without disturbing anyone else, which may give a simulated feeling that there is a listener present and where, from time to time the teacher may overhear what the student is saying and correct it. In rare, privileged, environments, you occasionally find small-group ‘conversation’ classes where eight to ten people talk together in the foreign language. 
Brown and Yule (1983b: 25)

This rarity is what the optimistic oral tutor or seminar leader of today hopefully aims for. Anything less constitutes letting the modern foreign languages student down. As Bygate (1987: 5) argues, if we limit ourselves to teaching our students to make the right sounds in the right places with grammatical accuracy, we leave them with the ability to drive well, but on a deserted road. They require interaction, and a measure of communicative freedom, but achieving this is not so simple.
	Before we consider what to teach in oral classes in order to attain this goal, we have to look at why we are teaching oral production in the first place, what its function really is. 

6.1.2.3  Speaking means natural output
Oral language is not simply written language spoken out loud. Oral language, in L1 or L2 (second language), has its own rules, its own vocabulary, its own structure. The type of communications we enter into can be classed as transactional (expressing content, communicating information) or interactional (expressing social relations, having a ‘conversation’). Oral language frequently falls more naturally into the second category:

It seems reasonable to suggest that, whereas in daily life in a literate culture, we use speech largely for the establishment and maintenance of human relations (primarily interactional use), we use written language largely for the working out of a transference of information (primarily transactional use). 
(Brown and Yule, 1983a: 13) 

Often classes involving students with lower levels of language may concentrate on transactional uses – a trip to the chemist’s, booking a hotel reservation over the telephone. Although we are in part training our students to survive in a foreign country, in which they will be required to communicate information effectively, we should also ensure that at least some of the focus falls upon the interactional uses of the spoken utterance. Consider the definition of ‘spoken language proficiency’ offered by student 9 in Activity 3 below: ‘I don’t  feel that proficient – I feel that I can discuss certain issues, but not carry out a general conversation’.

6.1.3  How SLA research informs the teaching of oral skills
SLA research is dealt with in detail in DELPHI Module 2, so this section serves merely to underline those aspects most relevant to the development of speaking skills. The teaching of oral skills has evolved a long way since the traditional Grammar–Translation approach which laid no emphasis on being able to speak the language. Krashen’s Input Theory, which prompted the first teaching approach to be based upon SLA research, relied on giving students lots of comprehensible input in the TL in order to facilitate the processing and understanding of how a language works (see Module 2, section 2.3.2).
Many consider that this approach failed to emphasize sufficiently the productive language skills. Swain’s Output Hypothesis argues that the focus on understanding language fails to give students sufficient opportunity to practise their skills (section 2.3.3; see also Swain, 2000). Creating output pushes learners to process the language more deeply; it also necessarily requires social interaction, which forces learners to negotiate meaning and to seek solutions.  As they attempt to produce language, students consolidate their knowledge, but become aware of the gaps within it. They form hypotheses, test them out, seek help, and regulate each other’s activity. Output subsequently elicits further input, which will present new challenges for the learner to overcome. See Swain (2000) and Chappelle (1998).
A major challenge for language teaching, especially the development of oral skills, is how to build up linguistic progression in a way that is manageable to the classroom learner. Second language acquisition research based on cognitive psychology sees language learning as a gradual process of skill acquisition, in which declarative knowledge about the language is turned into procedural knowledge of language use in ‘real time’ (see Johnson, 1996). On this view, learners progress from repetition and copying to the ‘online’ generation of own language in a process of gradual development. Some would equate this with the well-established pedagogical move from the ‘pre-communicative’, ie structural and quasi-communicative activities, to the ‘communicative’, or functional and social interaction (Littlewood, 1981).
	One of the pedagogical applications of these insights has been the so-called PPP approach, or
•	Presentation: drawing learners’ attention to a specific form or structure, usually through contextualized use;
•	Practice: teacher control gradually eases and learners work on the particular form, initially in controlled conditions;
•	Production: learners engage in open practice, free of teacher control, with the focus  on meaning.
Many working in SLA (see, for example, Willis and Willis, 1996) are critical of the proposition that it is possible to order ‘chunks’ of the language into a syllabus of graded difficulty and that a given item can be learnt and subsequently employed in spontaneous language use within the space of a single lesson or even a few lessons. Even after a particular linguistic item appears to have been taught successfully (ie learners have jumped through all the hoops as intended and have used a particular form effectively in largely free oral interaction), it frequently becomes clear in a subsequent assessment, or even the next lesson, that the item has, in fact, still not entered learners’ interlanguage (their current stage of L2 development) and is not being used correctly. Consequently, proponents of task-based approaches to language learning prefer to foreground meaningful interaction and real-time use of language before focusing learners attention on language form, in effect reversing the PPP paradigm (see Module 4). 
	It is understandable for language tutors to feel somewhat confused by these apparently contradictory trends. However, sound practice is likely to be one that avoids the pitfalls of extremes of methodology (eg an over-rigid sequencing of pedagogic phases or an entirely unstructured communicative ‘free for all’) and is mindful of the learner’s need for a clear structure to his or her learning. In developing speaking at the beginner’s stage, this would mean a place for repetition and drilling, and for a gradual move from short to long utterances, from simple to complex language, from scripted or didactically prepared to authentic and less salient language. Beyond the beginner’s phase it would mean recognizing the need for interaction, for increasing real-time authentic language use and increasing complexification. 
At intermediate and advanced levels it is often simply assumed oral work means discussion. But careful thought needs to be given to how precisely we can get learners to the point of being able to conduct meaningful conversations. Field (1999: 197–202) proposes a five-part sequencing of speaking activities. The following is a summary of this:
•	Presenting a unit (eg in a textbook or a dossier): this is aimed at activating existing  knowledge relevant to the topic and existing language ability; it involves closed questions and answers and maybe also repetition, response to visual aids and written texts.
•	Factual responses: this involves relaying facts via oral presentations, eg narrating stories, reporting events, oral reconstruction of skeleton texts or freeze-frame video footage.
•	Personalization: following the inputting of relevant information at the above two stages, this moves learners from the ‘concrete to the abstract’, away from roles towards more speaking for oneself. The teacher has a key role to play here, focusing learners’ attention first on range, then on range and fluency, before seeking to develop range, fluency and accuracy together (cf Johnson, 1989), challenging learners’ points of view, introducing unpredictable elements and using carefully selected questions to force learners’ to focus on accuracy (eg specific tense usage).
•	Opinion building: here unscripted oral presentations are intended to help develop learners’ independence and fluency; learners need to be encouraged to use ‘visual and verbal prompts’ and to integrate verbal signposting or discourse markers (Johnson, 1989) to help structure their presentation (ie ‘firstly, secondly’, thirdly’, ‘on the one hand…on the other’, ‘I come now to my second point’, etc, etc).
•	Discussion: discussions amongst groups of students, ideally chaired by the teacher, allow speakers to expand on the theme of a presentation, ‘thereby practising independence, fluency and spontaneity’ (Field, 1999: 202). Responses from listeners  challenge the speaker to clarify or to justify what he / she has said, thus creating genuine information gaps and increasing unpredictability.

6.1.4  How does an oral class differ from any skills class?
Section 6.1.2 highlighted what people do with spoken language; they: 
•	combine it with other skills; 
•	communicate with an interlocutor;
•	operate in a variety of contexts, which frequently differ from those encountered in written language situations.
These are the linguistic elements which need to be addressed in oral classes. There will also be academic demands that need to be met (for example, grammatical points to illustrate and practise, socio-cultural information to convey). A second-year course, for example, might frequently focus on preparation for a forthcoming period of residence abroad. The two aims, fulfilling language functions and engaging in language activities, need to be combined.

6.2  Learner perceptions and learner strategies
This section examines the reasons why students may not be motivated to participate in oral classes, listens to the views of the students themselves on the subject, and then considers what tutors can do to reduce the obstacles to full participation.

Activity 2

Begin by listing reasons why students might not participate in oral activities, basing your observations on your own experience if possible.

6.2.1  Reasons underlying poor motivation 
Here we look at the two main reasons why students hide behind silence in oral classes.

6.2.1.1  Inhibitions
Oral classes are, by their very nature, rather ‘public’ affairs. The manner of production of oral language, even in L1, places demands on a speaker in many ways:

Not only is the speaker controlling the production of communication systems which are different from those controlled by the writer, he is also processing that production under circumstances which are considerably more demanding! The speaker must monitor what it is that he has just said, and determine whether it matches his intentions, while he is uttering his current phrase and monitoring that, and simultaneously planning his next utterance and fitting that into the overall pattern of what he wants to say and monitoring, moreover, not only his own performance but its reception by his hearer. He has no permanent record of what he has said earlier, and only under unusual circumstances does he have notes which remind him what he wants to say next. 
(Brown and Yule, 1983a: 4–5) 

It should come as no surprise, then, that many foreign language learners at all but the most advanced levels find this a most stressful experience. In a group discussion these demands are multiplied. The student has to keep up with the discussion, formulate an opinion, and intervene.
	This is especially true of first-year undergraduates, who are very much concerned with how others view them, and who are characteristically affected by small fish / big pond syndrome. In other words, they will mostly have arrived fresh from intimate A-level groups, in which they will have been the strongest candidates, to find themselves engulfed in an often much larger peer group, alongside bilinguals and those who have spent a gap year working their way around a TL-speaking country. Such a candidate may find that they still hold the upper hand in grammar classes and writing exercises, but may suffer from an inferiority complex when asked to perform orally.

6.2.1.2  Absence of purpose 
The second reason that students will be reluctant to speak is if they have no reason to (Ur, 1981: 5–6). Nervous or reserved students will not communicate simply for the sake of it, while some students are naturally more thoughtful or less garrulous. Making activities meaningful means offering task-based activities as opposed to uniquely topic-based ones (see Ur, 1991: 123–24; for tasks and their uses, see Module 4, especially section 4.3). Choosing a topic and saying, ‘discuss’, may work with highly proficient groups, but otherwise try an approach along the following lines: ‘talk about x in role-situation y in order to achieve z’ (Ur: 1981: 11). Or engage students’ interest from the off, by letting them choose the topic, but then devise exercises where they have a reason for talking. With oral presentations, make sure there is something for the listeners to do too.

6.2.2  Students’ views

Activity 3

 Read the following comments from foreign language students, in which they describe how they feel about speaking in oral classes. The first six are final-year students, numbers 7–14 are second years, and the rest are first years. 

a)	Which activities are the most and least popular? Draw up a list of students’ likes and  dislikes.
b)	Do you see any conflicts between what they say and your own teaching principles? 
c)	What would you do if you encountered students with similar views in your classes?

1.	I still find it quite difficult sometimes, even after my year abroad. I often find myself pausing and waiting to be corrected. I like discussions, but I find the texts difficult to read and sometimes presented in a boring way.
2.	I felt really good after spending a year abroad, but now my confidence has slipped again. I enjoy watching videos, discussions about things that affect us, and just gossip too – it helps to relax everyone.
3.	I need lots of practice. I like debates, interesting and challenging, opportunity to express an opinion. I don’t like it that nobody else seems to want to speak. It is ridiculous.
4.	Discussions are good, but often difficult if we are discussing a subject that we know little about. Class debates are a good way of encouraging a natural flow of conversation, in a ‘real’ context, and getting everyone to contribute. More time to practise pronunciation would be helpful.
5.	I think I tend to hesitate quite a bit when I speak. My mind tends to go blank under pressure. I hate speaking in front of a group, especially if I don’t know anything about the topic.
6.	I am fairly confident but find the pronunciation of certain words difficult. Also I tend to think in English before translating it into French when I am speaking. I enjoy discussion about contemporary issues where we can express our opinions, and take a lively part!
7.	I am more proficient at listening and writing. We did an exercise where we had to make up a story by choosing pictures and then tell it to everyone. We did it in pairs and that was good.
8.	I’m OK, but I lack confidence which means I get flustered and make daft mistakes.
9.	I don’t feel that proficient – I feel that I can discuss certain issues, but not carry out a general conversation. I like discussing issues because you can increase the vocabulary and it is more interesting. I don’t like filling in gaps for poetry, or reading Astérix le Gaulois.
10.	I make more errors in speaking than in reading and writing. I don’t like debates as I feel more pressured. Informal conversations are more fun. Working with a video is good too.
11.	Having spent a year living in France I feel that I am fairly proficient. I particularly like group work – fairly amusing and relaxed.
12.	I can speak fairly fluently, but I am very inaccurate. I hate games – I feel much more could be learnt from discussions. Debates are probably the best activities, or discussions on modern themes. At least then everybody has something to say and has an opinion.
13.	I enjoy talking about our weekends / hobbies, etc, because it is relaxed and informal. I also like doing very specific topics, because I feel that I gain a lot of vocab by doing these.
14.	I am gaining confidence but often trying to think of words can be difficult whilst speaking. I like games, listening and commenting on ideas, TV programmes and music, because it is interesting. Presentations are good for practice but can be a bit nerve-wracking.
15.	I would like to be able to feel more comfortable with the language. I love any type of conversation. The trouble is, not everyone is interested in the subject, or they lack confidence, and they tend not to say anything – it’s annoying!
16.	I prepare to know what a discussion is to be about in advance, so that I can prepare. I feel under pressure and discouraged from speaking when we are asked open questions [meaning, I think, spontaneous questions on unknown topics, author]. I don’t feel that these classes are a good way of measuring potential – from the first class I felt I wasn’t at the same level as everybody else, however, I feel able to participate now.
17.	Not as proficient as I feel in writing. Spontaneity is something I have to work on; rather than trying to make sure everything is grammatically spot on. A focus for the sessions (theme or something) makes them go more smoothly – and open-ended questions make everyone clam up.
18.	I don’t feel so confident when speaking, although it isn’t embarrassing to make a mistake (friendly class, with my mates, good teacher). I don’t like presentations because you are exposed to other students, and everybody sees your mistakes.
19.	Activities expressing opinions are the most interesting. Involves whole group, not just one or two individuals.
20.	I’m fairly proficient, but there are quite a lot of things I can’t say. I like talking about things as a group – I think it helps me to improve.

Refer to Commentary for feedback. 

6.2.3  What tutors can do to help 

Activity 4

Think of an oral class or seminar you have recently led, that did not go according to plan, from the point of view of student participation. Note down what happened and  why you feel students were not participating. 
Before you read the next section, reflect briefly on what you might have done differently.

6.2.3.1  Reduce communicative stress
Students are more likely to communicate if they have a good grasp of what they need to do. Brown and Yule (1983b: 34) list ways in which what they term ‘communicative stress’ might be reduced in oral classes (see Appendix 1). Non-threatening measures include: 
•	working in groups of small size;
•	breaking classes down further into pairs or small groups (which of course has the added benefit of maximizing speaking time for individual students and providing listeners of similar standards);
•	giving learners a chance to prepare material (or to talk about a familiar topic);
•	using activities that have a real purpose. 
Many of these points might already seem familiar as they echo the comments made by undergraduates in section 6.2.2. 
	In order to foster fluency, Ur makes a further suggestion (1991: 121–22): 

In general, the level of language needed for a discussion should be lower than that used in intensive language-learning activities in the same class: it should be easily recalled and produced by the participants, so that they can speak fluently with the minimum hesitation. 

Nothing hampers communication so much as a lack of appropriate vocabulary, so introducing a lot of new words immediately before an oral exercise might be deemed stressful. This is not to suggest that new words and structures should not be fed into oral work, simply that a little time, perhaps a week or two, is given for absorption. 

6.2.3.2  Don’t fear silence
In both content classrooms and language classrooms, it has been found that teachers seem ‘to become anxious if their questions are followed by silence’ (Nunan and Lamb, 1996: 84). These authors quote research suggesting that tutors tend to wait only a second for a response to their question, before rephrasing it, replying themselves or employing some similar strategy to fill the void:

We believe that it is particularly important for second language students to have sufficient time to think about questions before being required to answer them. However, we also acknowledge the fact that, from the perspective of managing the learning process, silence tends to break up the flow of lessons. 
(Nunan and Lamb, 1996: 84–85)

My own response to this would be that you have only to think of the embarrassed silence which falls after an audience of lecturers has been invited to ask questions after a lecture, before the debate gets off the ground. All listeners need time to process the input they have received, before they are able to comment on it. Try extending your pauses just a little and you may reap dividends.

6.2.3.3  Create realistic goals
Tutors should always bear in mind, when leading an oral class, what realistic expectations are for spoken language. Different modes of production have different notions of correctness. Insisting upon a complete sentence for every utterance, for example, is as unrealistic as it is unnatural. A spoken utterance has certain features which clearly demarcate it from written discourse:
•	it is syntactically less structured;
•	it is often incomplete;
•	it contains little subordination;
•	it is characterized by the speaker correcting / refining as she or he goes along;
•	it is largely based upon generalized vocabulary;
•	it contains much repetition and redundancy;
•	it uses ‘fillers’.
 (Brown and Yule, 1983a: 15–17)
	Bygate (1987: 15–18) lists four ways in which a speaker facilitates the production of speech:
•	by simplifying structure, through juxtaposition or co-ordination as opposed to subordination (eg ‘That’s the job of the liaison officer, the person responsible for links with schools’);  
•	by ellipsis, ie short cuts, economical utterances, incomplete sentences; eg ‘ ‘Not me’, or ‘Count us out’;
•	by using formulaic expressions (ie  idiomatic phrases, ‘I don’t believe a word of it’);
•	by the use of time-creating devices, such as fillers and hesitation devices) (eg ‘Well, it was, sort of, you know, difficult to …er... get a word in while he was so annoyed ‘).
To this list one could add: working with the interlocutor, co-constructing the conversation, using non-verbal forms of communication (eg gesture, facial expressions) and using mutual or shared understandings.

Activity 5

Consider the dialogue below. List the particular features of spoken utterance that characterize the dialogue. This is an interesting example, because the two speakers are academics!
D: on occasion we do a bit proof reading along there +
K: uhuh 
D: and we’re all sort of called on to do that from time to time 
K: what does that involve 
D: well + one of our main jobs in the Botanics is writing for the flora of Turkey + 
K: uhuh 
D: they haven’t got the scientists to do it so + we sort of supply the scientists for that +
K: uhuh 
D: well when + you’ve got all the scientific work written up + we all sort of check through it and one - reads and the others + 
K: oh I see you read aloud
D: uhuh that’s right
K: I see 
D: and then you sort of switch back and forward like this + 
K: uhuh + and that doesn’t bother you 
D: it does actually (laughter) I’m terrible at it + but I don’t know 
K: even when it’s something you’re interested in + 
D: well it makes it a bit easier to read certainly but + em just because you’re reading to somebody else you feel + a bit uneasy somehow
K: uhuh 
(From Brown and Yule, 1983b: 5 )

See Commentary for feedback. 

When considering these factors, we must bear in mind that we are preparing our students for both ‘short turns’ (one or two utterances) and longer transactional turns (open-ended, involving longer explanations, summaries of important detail, justifications of an opinion, etc). The former are characterized by the factors picked up in the commentary to Activity 5, while the latter must be clear, precise, structured and expressed in much more controlled utterances (Brown and Yule, 1983b: 16–20); for example:

A:  What features of the film appealed to you, then?
B:  Well….First, I particularly enjoyed the constantly changing camera angle and the way the viewer was made to feel part of the action….. Second, I also liked the way the story about the… small boy, in a way, reflected the main storyline, the main plot…and added depth to it, if you know what I mean. And third, it was exciting, it held my attention throughout.
A: Didn’t you feel the double storyline was a little confusing in places? For example, it kept jumping from the present back to last year without any warning?
B:  Well, on the one hand, it’s true there was a lot of chopping and changing, but on the other, seeing the boy’s difficulties with his father did, as I say, present the main story in a different light.

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF, 2002; see 6.6.1 for details) labels these two types of performance Interaction and Production (CEF, 2002, section 9.2.1). This has implications when devising marking guidelines for assessment exercises, which are considered in section 6.6.3 below. 

6.2.3.4  Correct errors sensitively
It is always a quandary to know how much to correct in an oral class – if you intervene you might isolate your students and cow them into silence, but if you let too many errors go unchecked, are you simply compounding them? Brown (2001: 181) is rather reassuring on the latter point:

There is now enough research to tell us that (a) levels of accuracy maintained in unsupervised groups are as high as those in teacher-monitored whole-class work, and that (b) as much as you would like not to believe it, teachers’ overt attempts to correct speech errors in the classroom have a negligible effect on students’ subsequent performance.

So neither a high concentration of semi-unmonitored pair- or group-work, nor a policy of letting students have their head in order to foster fluency, is likely to have an adverse effect on elimination of errors.
	In deciding your own policy, you should first be clear on the difference between an error and a mistake. The CEF defines the difference as follows:

Errors are due to an interlanguage, a simplified or distorted representation of the target competence. When the learner makes errors, his performance truly accords with his competence, which has developed characteristics different from those of L2 norms. Mistakes, on the other hand, occur in performance when a user / learner (as might be the case with a native speaker) does not bring his competences properly into action. 
(CEF, 2002, section 6.5)

For further reading see section 13.4 of DELPHI Module 13, ‘Approaches to Assessment’, section 13.4.2 which, drawing on James (1998), further subdivides learner inaccuracy into:
•	lapses or slips;
•	first order mistakes (which the student can correct if prompted);
•	second order mistakes (which the student can correct if told where she/he has gone wrong);
•	errors (which require further learning before a correction can be understood). 
(See also Module 13, section 13.5.3, on correcting spoken errors.) 

Activity 6

Read through the following possible approaches that might be adopted when dealing with errors and mistakes, as suggested by the CEF (2002, section 6.5.2) and decide which you agree with and which you disagree with:

1.	All errors and mistakes should be immediately corrected by the teacher.
2.	Immediate peer-correction should be systematically encouraged to eradicate errors.
3.	All errors should be noted and corrected at a time when doing so does not interfere with communication (eg by separating the development of accuracy from the development of fluency).
4.	Errors should not be simply corrected, but analysed and explained at an appropriate time.
5.	Mistakes which are mere slips should be passed over, but systematic errors should be eradicated.
6.	Errors should be corrected only when they interfere with communication.
7.	Errors should be accepted as ‘transitional interlanguage’ and ignored.

My view is that a tutor should be lenient with clear mistakes but listen to the students themselves when it comes to correcting everything else. Nunan and Lamb (1996: 70–71) quote research which shows that students prefer, unsurprisingly, not to be told outright they are wrong, but to be invited to make the corrections for themselves. A way of dealing with this is to adopt a technique where you repeat their utterance but pause before the error, to see if the student can self-correct:

S: nous avons allé …
T: nous … 
S: nous sommes allés.

	In my experience, students appreciate being corrected (it is their perception that this is effective, whatever the research may suggest), with certain caveats. When I asked a group of undergraduates how and when they like to receive correction, their answers could be summarized as follows:
1.	Students want to be corrected by tutors – they feel badly done by if errors are ignored.
2.	Some like to see corrections written up on the board.
3.	Corrections in informal contexts (among peers, friends) are not always so welcome, although some respondents thought this was less confrontational.
4.	Having huge lists of misdemeanours read out after a presentation is too humiliating – some prefer privately given individual feedback.
5.	Learners do not like being interrupted, as it breaks the flow (although one or two said they preferred ‘on-the-spot’ correction, as after the event it is too late).
6.	The attitude of the corrector is everything – not patronizing or annoyed, but friendly and professional.
7.	Students like being praised for what they have done well, in addition to having their weak points highlighted.
8.	Sometimes simply repeating the phrase / word correctly is enough – it doesn’t draw undue attention to the speaker, but gets the point across.
9.	Some mentioned the possibility of correcting errors at the end of a session, so that no single student is under the spot-light.
Further approaches include:
•	occasionally collecting common errors to present to the group, rather than individual ones;
•	prioritizing feedback and not trying to correct everything at once;
•	encouraging peer correction.
(For further reading on error correction, see Nunan and Lamb, 1996: 68–80).

6.2.3.5  Communication Strategies
Focusing upon communication strategies encourages the student to take control of his or her learning and move towards autonomy. It is a way of improving motivation in students, because it teaches them how to monitor their spoken production and improve without the tutor’s constant input. Research has shown that it is more beneficial to integrate such strategies into tasks and lessons, to inform the students of the value of such skills (‘informed training’, as opposed to ‘blind training’, which tends to result in non-transferability of the skill), and to focus only on one or two skills at a time. Descriptions of projects evaluating this kind of learner strategy training can be found in Wenden (1987: 163), who reports a great sense of achievement among students and reliable judgements about their own performance.

Strategies of relevance to spoken utterance are:
•	self-monitoring;
•	risk-taking exercises for increased fluency;
•	topic manipulation (steering the conversation into more familiar areas);
•	picking up and using an interlocutor’s language;
•	employing time-creating ‘fillers’;
•	using idiomatic phrases;
•	applying circumlocution or substitution (synonyms, paraphrase) to counter vocabulary deficiencies.
For further information on oral communication strategies see Grenfell and Harris (1999: 94–103), Wenden (1987), and Johnstone (1989). The techniques for classroom activities suggested in section 6.3 will include suggestions for building in communication strategies.

Activity 7

Look back on the notes that you made for Activity 4 on a class you were not pleased with from the point of view of student participation. In the light of the reading you have done since (section 6.2.3), what do you now think you might have done differently to improve matters?

6.3  Classroom techniques for developing speaking skills
When devising your own speaking tasks it is useful to bear in mind Brown’s list of principles (2001: 181). To summarize, tasks should:
•	motivate the student;
•	have a certain authenticity;
•	make room for meaningful feedback;
•	integrate with listening skills;
•	allow students to initiate communication (instead of simply answer questions);
•	build in speaking strategies.
The techniques suggested below start from a variety of stimuli. I have attempted to give suggestions appropriate to different levels, and also to suggest ways of integrating strategy tasks.

6.3.1  What is appropriate for different levels.
The ideas detailed below try to give suggestions for different levels. Those teaching language at very basic levels are referred to Brown and Yule (1983b: 28–33), for suggestions on how to quickly introduce interactional short responses to enable complete beginners to participate in a basic conversation or role-play.  All tutors may find it useful to consult Brown (2001: 96–114) on teaching different levels of proficiency.

6.3.2  Working from a video stimulus
The first very important point to make about the use of video material is not to use very long chunks of tape. Try analysing a ten-minute sequence, with two or three viewings, and that will be half the lesson gone before anyone has contributed. In any case it is unrealistic to ask students to retain so much information, and to have the skill required to select which parts are most worthy of comment. Usually one should stick to sixty seconds of tape or less at a time.

•	Using the news. Less advanced learners might view the news headlines. Students can do a guided listening activity on the first two viewings: perhaps fill in a grid to indicate what categories of news are covered, politics, national news, environmental issues, etc), and the class as a whole, or pairs, can compare at the end and discuss their choices. Alternatively, learners might be asked to view without the sound first and to make predictions about likely content, and then to view the sound so that information is expanded gradually. More advanced groups might do the above activity quickly as a little refresher (perhaps choosing the story they want to know more about, if the tutor is ‘prepared’ for a little spontaneity), before looking at a story in detail. Viewing without the sound and brainstorming for relevant vocabulary provides material for a later discussion. A checklist of questions (who, what, where, when, why?) provides more of a structure for discussion. Intermediate groups might benefit from a longer questionnaire with more detailed questions that they can then discuss amongst themselves first.

•	Students behind the camera. First-year advanced level undergraduates might find making a presentation to camera  a less stressful introduction to presentation work. A colleague has had a lot of success with a Study Skills module, where groups of students read and research a book in depth, write, direct and present a video on it as a group, and hand in an individual written report. Both the video and the written exercise, which focus on different elements of the text, have extensive guidelines to help students (for the edited module guidelines, see Appendix 2). For this project the students use the resources of the campus’s TV services department, but such a project does not need to be technologically complex, as long as the department has access to a video camera.

•	Transactional activities. Transactional / information-gap activities are sometimes tricky for practical reasons (sending half the class from the room? turning the screen away from a particular group of students?). Hill suggests using excerpts with very little dialogue or background sound, eg Mr Bean (Hill, 1999: 24): one student can view / describe, the other can ask questions to build up his or her comprehension.

•	Other possibilities. Freeze on a frame, and ask the class for a quick description of what can be seen (Hill, 1999: 26). Ask students to speculate on what is going to happen next. Use a dialogue as the basis for a reported speech exercise.

•	Communication strategies. Inviting the students to video their own speaking tasks is useful from a learning strategy point of view. Students can be taught how to monitor themselves for errors, and how to improve their general presentation skills (body language, use of notes, eye contact, etc).

6.3.2.1  Further sources for video work
•	Cooper, Lavey and Rinvolucri (1991) contains activities and class plans, graded according to level of proficiency (beginner, elementary, pre-intermediate, lower intermediate, intermediate, upper intermediate, advanced), including use of pre-recorded material and making student videos in group and pair work. 
•	Stempleski and Tomalin (1990) suggest activities and lesson plans, which are also graded (beginners, elementary, intermediate, advanced), together with an ‘index of activities’, grouping speaking activities together, for example. 
•	Hill (1999) devotes chapter 3 to the development of oral skills through video.
•	Fawkes (1999) is especially useful for work with beginners.
•	See also Module 5, section 5.2.3. 

6.3.3  Working from an audio stimulus
•	Using Songs. Songs can be used in several ways:
1) Beginners can listen for key words, or listen and repeat for pronunciation practice. 
2) Intermediate groups can listen twice, then pair up to try to match the song to one of several titles. Use a gap-filler exercise based on two or three listenings: learners can be encouraged to discuss the possibilities amongst themselves using the target language as much as possible, before correction as a class. 
3) Advanced learners can do this with something harder to decipher, like rap, which often appeals. Choose a controversial song; for French learners, Francis Cabrel’s La Corrida, on the subject of the bullfight, is a good example; hard to unravel too, since the perspective is the bull’s. 
4) For slightly less advanced groups, who might not comfortably make the leap from listening to discussion in the TL, try bridging the gap by having particular quotations ready on slips of paper for discussion in pairs (if pairs have different quotations, the class will have more information and ideas to share later). Remember to give the discussion a focus, perhaps by working towards a vote at the end.

•	News / current affairs. Radio news bulletins and current affairs interviews are more likely to be used in advanced classes, since it is a harder task (no picture clues). However, a bridge to this kind of activity might be to ask listeners to tick from a checklist what items they heard, while listening to the headlines. They can then justify their choices in discussion ( ‘I heard the words … so that must relate to this story’, etc). Advanced groups can be asked to summarize the main points of a news item or interview. For a first listening, just use the introduction and ask students to speculate on what issues might be raised, perhaps brainstorming necessary vocabulary. Encourage students to take a critical perspective on an interview:
•	Was there a certain bias?
•	Did the interviewee avoid answering certain questions, and if so why? 
•	Why were some of the issues raised by the class in the pre-listening activity not in fact raised by the interviewer?
Of course, most groups are going to need help with the linguistic tools to do this and some initial modelling by the teacher is likely to be necessary.

•	Other possibilities. Some of the activities suggested in 6.3.2 can be adapted for audio stimuli (see particularly ‘communication strategies’). For further reading, see chapter 3 on ‘Using audio to develop speaking skills’ in Barley (1990: 21–27). 

•	Communication strategies. Students can often pick up on each others’ mistakes more easily than they can their own, so they could work from audio tapes on both each others’ and their own errors. Of course, they may not be keen to do this with recordings of their own voices, so another option would be to use recordings from previous years.  Teach students how to assess their own speaking skills and monitor their progress, by showing them how the criteria for assessment are applied, how a performance is judged, and then ask them to assess their own performance, on a regular basis.

6.3.4  Working from a written stimulus
•	Debates. These activities can be prepared in advance, where each student is assigned a role and given a dossier of relevant information upon which to found their argument. The temptation, with activities involving ‘long turns’, is for students to prepare in advance and reel off a rote-learned speech. The answer to this is for the tutor (and peers) to interrupt with questions; it should be known in advance that this will happen. Dossier-preparation ends up being rather time-consuming for tutors, so why not let more advanced groups develop their own role plays, following clear guidelines? They choose the topic as a class, perhaps from a shortlist prepared by the tutor to save time, assign themselves roles (which again the tutor can have thought about in advance) and research their own dossiers. This leads to greater learner autonomy, builds research skills into the programme and heightens interest. To ensure that students do compile a full dossier, make it known that the latter will be used with students in the year below for their debates. Encourage the class to assign a task to the role, and maybe build in a written follow-up activity.

•	Mini-debates. If students are always asked to prepare in advance they may not develop enough confidence for speaking spontaneously. Colloquial assistants in our department a few years ago devised the mini-debate, for second-year undergraduates. Taking a controversial topic from the news (they chose, for example, the Clinton / Lewinski affair and Louise Woodward’s release), they prepared in advance a role for each student, using just a paragraph of text, with maybe a headline or a photograph, as a stimulus to get them started. After just a few minutes’ preparation they unleashed the debate. Since they had chosen sensationalist themes, the debate was usually found to be lively. 

•	Communication strategies. Consider making mini-debates correction-free, to encourage the students to take risks with what they say, as a fluency-increasing strategy (see 6.2.3.5 above), making it explicit to the students that this is what is happening. Pre-teach phrases for speakers to intervene, contradict, reinforce, etc. Encourage learners to develop ways to express or defend an opinion. A third strategy useful in debate and discussion is to teach students how to pick up on an interlocutor’s words and use them for the purposes of their own argument.

6.3.5  Working from a picture stimulus
•	Using photos/pictures. Picture stimuli are very useful from beginner level upwards, since there are no words to provide a barrier to understanding. Try experimenting with information-gap activities: I have had some very successful first-year undergraduate classes where one pair must describe a modern art canvas, while another team attempts to draw what is described. You may encounter a certain reluctance to show off artistic skills, but if you emphasize that simple symbols to represent objects, stick figures, etc, are all that is required, this can be overcome. A variation on the theme is a ‘spot the difference’ exercise, where each partner has a slightly different picture, or where one partner has three pictures with subtle differences and has to ascertain which version the other has. Material for such exercises can be found in a wide range of EFL / ESL teaching aids and compendia. 

•	Using advertisements. Magazine adverts provide a real insight into the TL culture, help students learn to read cultural signals and, if handled in a light-hearted fashion, can provide a useful exercise, especially in the year preceding residence abroad, to heighten awareness of cultural stereotypes. The idea is to choose advertisements which present typical stereotypes of the British from the TL perspective. Look for ones advertising typically British products (Range Rovers, tea, gin, etc), ask students to decipher the underlying message, and use this to lead into a discussion of stereotypical presentations of the TL nation. Where students are to go to the target country, this could then move onto students’ own expectations and personal attitudes to their impending stay.

•	Communication strategies. Teach students the skill of circumlocution, or substitution through paraphrase or use of synonyms to get round any missing vocabulary. Pre-teach phrases so that learners can specify whereabouts objects are (top, bottom, foreground, etc), describe approximate sizes and shapes, and so on.

6.3.6  Mixed-level groups
In a department which does not have a policy of streaming, language groups can be  very varied across the same level (eg post-A level, post-GCSE). Hess (2001) discusses precisely the difficulty of coping with students of varying standards within a single group. The tasks she proposes are aimed at classes of 30+, but there are many useful ideas which can be applied to smaller groups too. Nunan and Lamb (1996: 158–67) also suggest a number of strategies.
Group tasks place less stress on individual learners, in addition to improving the cohesiveness of the class as a whole. Peer teaching (where a student or a pair present a grammar point to the class, for example) brings students to focus on particular areas of weakness, with the purpose of imparting their new-found knowledge to others. Open-ended tasks, which have a range of valid responses, allow weaker students to play their part, while at the same time giving the stronger ones an opportunity to stretch their wings.
These suggestions perhaps do not really address the other great dilemma of the oral class or seminar: what to do when one dominant personality (not necessarily the strongest student, linguistically speaking) hogs the limelight. In this case, it pays to break down into pairs and small groups regularly. Tutors might also invite quieter speakers to speak by name. Role-play exercises, where everyone has a part, avoid the problem to a certain extent, as long as the quieter ones do not dry up. Here are a few other suggestions, from experienced staff:

T1: Whenever possible I sit him / her next to me so that there is not so much eye contact and I can ignore him / her more easily and turn to the silent ones. Organizing pair work or other oral activities would also be a way of reducing opportunities for spontaneous contributions.

T2: I’ve never tried it but I suppose giving that person a kind of chairing role so that they can understand the difficulty of managing a class, if there is one dominant personality (I used to do a workshop class of that kind in my option and I remember someone telling me how hard and enlightening he had found the experience).

T3: It is sometimes possible to take the student aside and have a quiet word. Often an explanation works wonders – the ones who keep talking do so because they are interested, but also because they can’t abide the silences. Let them in on the secret that actually a few silences will encourage the others to come forward. (See 6.2.3.2) 

6.4 Pronunciation

6.4.1  Should pronunciation be taught?

Activity 8

Before tackling this section, consider for a moment how you yourself learnt pronunciation in your first foreign language. 
Was it taught formally in class? If so, how?
Do you do anything differently in your own teaching?
For students whose course includes a period of residence abroad, do you think it adequate to depend exclusively on TL exposure for pronunciation improvement?
What do you think about the claim that many students simply cannot be taught pronunciation?

To a certain extent, the teaching of pronunciation will depend on existing curricular structures in your institution. It may be that pronunciation skills are taught separately in specially earmarked language laboratory sessions. This makes sense as pronunciation practice lends itself particularly to listen-and-repeat style drills, with external monitoring.
If this is not the case in your institution, then it is useful to spend some class time working on pronunciation. It is tempting to leave it to chance and the year abroad, especially when there are so many other constraints on class time. However, it should be borne in mind that some joint / combined honours students, and most IWLP learners, may not spend much time in the TL country. In any case, not everyone is fortunate enough to have the sort of highly-tuned ear that naturally picks up foreign pronunciation. For many learners it requires hard work, so some class time should be devoted to pronunciation tasks, if only to demonstrate to students how they may better practise on their own.

6.4.2  What does teaching pronunciation involve?
Learning pronunication differs from learning any other aspect of language in one important way:

[…] as well as involving meaning or cognition processes, it brings into play our motor-sensory capabilities, requiring training of our auditory perception and the control of our vocal organs. 
(Grauberg, 1997: 141)

The difficulty facing a teacher is that you cannot teach a second party to reproduce the sounds you are making, if you do not understand the process whereby you are producing those sounds in the first place. At least some grounding in phonetics is required, and it is useful to learn how speech is formed. See, for example, Grauberg (1997: 144–46). Tutors of French and German might also find it useful to read Grauberg’s tips on teaching particular sounds in these languages (1997: 157–59, 175–77).
Practice in classtime should be carried out in a focused way, little and often, concentrating on the particular difficulties experienced by English speakers (eg vowel sounds in French).  It is worth making a note here about accent. While some learners pride themselves on attaining accent-free pronunciation, and delight in being taken for a native-speaker, others may consider that an accented pronunciation in some way preserves their cultural identity. In this it pays to be sensitive, and to focus principally on idiosyncrasies of pronunciation which impede understanding, or which constitute grammatical errors.

6.4.3  Pronunciation activities
•	Tongue-twisters are excellent pronunciation activities as they usually focus on a particular sound or sounds. At the tongue-twister website you can find examples in any language you care to mention (http://www.uebersetzung.at/twister/index.htm).

•	Short poems, usually humorous ones, can often be found that perform the same function. See, for example, Le Pelican below. Use texts like these for short fillers, five-minute activities to revive a flagging group.

Material for a pronunciation activity

Le Pelican, par Robert Desnos

Le capitaine Jonathan,
Etant âgé de dix huit ans,
Capture un jour un pélican
Dans une île d’extrême orient.

Le pélican de Jonathan,
Au matin, pond un oeuf tout blanc
Et il en sort un pélican
Lui ressemblant étonnament.

Et ce deuxième pélican
Pond, à son tour, un oeuf tout blanc
D’où il sort, inévitablement
Un autre qui en fait autant.

Cela peut durer pendant très longtemps
Si l’on ne fait pas d’omelette avant.

•	For French tutors, there is a series of rhymes which sound like English nursery rhymes. A small suspension of disbelief is required, since the French has been written to make sense in its own right as well as approximate the English sounds, so that some bits leave a little to be desired (‘All the Kings’, in the following, for example). On the whole they are fairly recognizable, but only if read with the correct pronunciation, so are useful for reinforcing the rules. What follows below is Humpty Dumpty – if the first line doesn’t quite work, it’s because the student hasn’t noticed that ‘Halles’ has an aspirate ‘h’, so that there should be no liaison with the preceding ‘aux’:

Un petit d’un petit s’étonne aux Halles
Un petit d’un petit a degrés te fallent.
En eau de qui ne sort cesse, en eau de qui ne se mène,
Qu’un peut un petit d’un petit tout gué de Reguennes.

For the full collection of Mots d’heures: gousses, rames (ie Mother Goose Rhymes), see D’Antin (1967).

Since improving students’ pronunciation also involves training the ear, the following exercises will also be useful:
•	Dictation - short passages, either direct from the tutor or from a cassette, preferrably focused upon a particular sound or pair of sounds.
•	Word bingo – a listening activity to encourage recognition of different sounds. Use words that students confuse, or experience difficulties with. An example in French might be to reinforce the presence or absence of a terminal -e (indépendant, indépendante), or words that are close in pronunciation (lent / long). To render the feedback more immediate, after a pause to allow students to make their decision, the word pronounced could  be written on the board for verification.

For further reading on pronunciation activities, see Ur (1991: 46–59) and Nunan (1991: 100–115) and Brown (2001: 283–85).

6.4.4  Ways to encourage pronunciation practice
•	Reading aloud. If students are provided with stand-alone back-up resources, this can be a good way to work on pronunciation. Devise passages for reading practice, perhaps working on specific sounds or words, with an accompanying audio-tape, against which students can monitor their performance. Use either pre-recorded material or passages recorded by colloquial assistants.

•	Commercially available language books with accompanying audio-cassettes will often include materials for practicing pronunciation, for example Routledge’s Colloquials series (www.colloquials.routledge.com), available in several languages and aimed at beginners. Language courses on CD-Rom offer even greater potential: the Houghton Mifflin Speaking Series (college.hmco.com/languages/ ) allows students to record themselves speaking specific sentences, and to compare their voice patterns with those of native speakers.

6.5 	Encouraging the development of oral skills outside
the classroom
One factor that sets speaking apart from the other language skills is the difficulty that students experience in practising outside the classroom. The receptive skills of listening and reading can be exercised in isolation, since students process the source material themselves and are largely in a position to measure their own understanding, take their time over the task and consult reference books where necessary. This is to a certain extent also true for the productive skill of writing, with the added advantage that a piece of written work could be presented to a tutor at some future date for verification.
The immediate nature of the spoken language imposes constraints on practice sessions: in order to be meaningful, it requires an interlocutor to process the message, and to provide instant feedback (either direct, in the form of correction, or indirect, indicated by whether a message has been communicated). In this section we look at the difficulties students encounter in practising speaking skills, how these obstacles are overcome, and the steps tutors can take to enable students to maximize opportunities for practice.

6.5.1  Students’ views on practising speaking skills

Activity 9
 
Read through the selected responses, given by first- to final-year undergraduates of post-A level standard, in response to the question, ‘how do you practise your speaking skills outside class time’? Make a note of any recurring points that are made. Identify the strategies that students use. Are there any inadequacies that a tutor might be able to address?

Student responses:
1.	(a number of responses along the lines of I don’t really practise.)
2.	I try to meet with French people, but it’s not very easy.
3.	I need to be speaking more French but it is hard to find the time.
4.	 Practically no time available, although I think I avoid it quite a lot.
5.	 I practise more at writing as I have a couple of e-mail friends.
6.	 Sometimes I have phone conversations with French people or I read aloud.
7.	 I don’t really have much opportunity.
8.	 I find it difficult to practise speaking outside class time, but I do have French contacts and I try to telephone them as much as possible. Other than that, I talk to myself!!
9.	 I try to think about how I would express myself in French.
10.	 I try to spend some time speaking with native speakers, although difficult to achieve.
11.	 I don’t, although I should, I’m not sure how to go about it.

Those students who have family and friends who are speakers of the TL do not want for opportunities to practise their oral skills, but this category of language learner usually tends to be in the minority.
For the rest, how much they practise their spoken language, and in what way, can largely depend on personality. The last comment in Activity 7 (from a first-year undergraduate), is telling. Whether because of underdeveloped initiative skills, lack of confidence, or simply the pressures of embarking on a new venture, students do require support if they are to make contact with the native-speaker communities which populate the average campus. There are steps that we as tutors can take to help them exploit the natural resources, as well as suggestions we can make to help students polish their oral skills on their own.

6.5.2  Creating opportunities to meet native speakers
•	Organizing an event which throws students and native speakers together can pay dividends, but can also be time-consuming for the tutors involved. My own department has experimented with day-time gatherings on campus and evening events at an off-site venue (ie pub), and found the latter to be generally more successful. A labour-saving device is to recruit some enthusiastic second- or final-years to handle most of the organization.

•	Another possibility is to facilitate the swapping of e-mail addresses – setting up a dedicated noticeboard and inviting postings is an admin-free option, but a semi-official intervention will ensure a greater success rate (collect lists of e-mail addresses and pair students up so that everyone has a contact). The difficulty with this scheme is that it depends on the efficiency of the relevant IT departments in setting up e-mail addresses for newly-arrived overseas students.

•	The optimum answer for large numbers of students with different language requirements is to set up a centrally-organized exchange along the lines of that organized by the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Modern Languages (see http://www.cml.bham.ac.uk/support/exchange.htm) or by Manchester University’s Language Centre (see http://langcent.man.ac.uk/ill/colab.htm).  In both of these, students fill in their contact details and language requirements, which are inputted to a database, so that students can be matched. The latter system has been extended so that there now exists a level 2 accredited module called Tandem, which two linked students can follow, producing a learning dossier based around a variety of language tasks (translation, discourse analysis, and so on) – see http://langcent.man.ac.uk/flp/tandem.htm). 

6.5.3  ‘Talking to myself’
The student who gave this response (see student 8 in Activity 9) seemed to consider it an admission of madness, but it merits, on the contrary, serious consideration. Macaro (2000: 177) argues that:

L1 tends to be the language of thought unless the learner is very advanced or is in the target country, or can relate to a past event or experience in the target language environment. 

Before this stage is reached, the thought-processes involved in rehearsing what is to be said in English, then translating and finally speaking, slow communication down considerably. (You are reminded that in Activity 3, section 6.2.2, student 4 was acutely aware of this difficulty – and this student was a finalist).
There has been very little research into the role of thought in second-language production, but Cohen (1998: 157–214) provides a good overview of the topic, and presents some informal findings of his own. He concludes that, while we should acknowledge that many students feel happier using L1 to process grammar learning, encouraging students to think ‘free thoughts’ and rehearse pre-conversation in the target language has definite benefits and leads to more successful oral communication. 
This is more difficult when students are not immersed in a TL situation, but this is all the more reason to encourage practice in the skill. You can: 
•	encourage students to review what they are going to say before they say it, to spend a little time planning;
•	suggest that when they are not in a speaking situation, they make conscious efforts to train their imagination to function in the TL;
•	recommend students spend a few minutes every day (in different situations and circumstances) looking around and attempting to describe what they see – it is useful for identifying key vocabulary deficiencies, which can then provide the basis for some follow-up dictionary work (searching around for the right vocabulary is a clear impediment to fluid expression). 

6.5.4  Stand-alone multimedia resources
A couple of the students in Activity 7 mentioned reading aloud as a preferred exercise, and this is a good idea, with certain provisos. Students need to be made aware that this is a pronunciation exercise and does not constitute speaking practice (as the surveyed students appear to believe). Secondly, it is not a task that students can practise entirely in isolation: given the inevitable lack of feedback, they may simply be compounding their errors. It is a simple matter to provide passages for stand-alone reading practice, with an accompanying audio-tape against which students can monitor their performance. Either pre-recorded material can be used, or passages can be recorded using colloquial assistants. Also encourage students to record themselves so that they can review their performance retrospectively.

Finding IT resources to help students to practice speaking is a more difficult task, as the technology that allows software to recognize and process what students say is limited. Pachler (2002) reviews the current state of the technology, and assesses what it can and cannot do. Closed response programmes, which require responses from a limited repertoire (eg multiple-choice) are simpler than those which can cope with open responses, where every possible answer to questions has been anticipated, including mistakes. Often programmes using Speech Recognition technology are speaker dependent, and have to be trained to recognize the voice of their user, which is incompatible with language laboratory or language library use. (For further discussion of the role of ICT in language learning, see Pachler, 1999.)

A fully flexible programme which allows open-ended conversation, and can correct both syntactical and pronunciation mistakes, and those of usage, has yet to be developed, but within the limitations of the technology there are packages available:

•	Triple Play Plus, available for French and Spanish at beginners level, allows the user to play games with the computer (therefore using a limited repertoire of responses, and includes a voice-recording feature (http://www.cd-teacher.com/foreign.html).

•	TeLL me More, reviewed by Pachler (2002), claims to assess pronunciation and correct mistakes. It is available in eight languages, at up to three levels (beginner, intermediate, advanced), and again the repertoire is broad but limited: interactive dialogues of 550 sentences and 15,000 words in the French beginners’ version (http://www.auralog.com/en/tellmemore.html). 

6.6  Assessment of oral skills
DELPHI Module 14 considers types of assessment, with section 14.3 dealing with approaches to assessing speaking. The focus there is how to assess speaking (the pros and cons of different types of test, their organization, and so on). Section 6.6 will therefore not duplicate that material but will focus instead on what should be tested, on considerations of marking, and on how to ensure progression from year to year. For further reading see Brown and Yule, 1983b: 102–49.

6.6.1  What should be assessed
The question that should always be asked first is, does the assessment fit the course, does it link up with the learning outcomes?  I remind tutors of the definitions of ‘short turns’ and ‘longer transactional turns’ given in 6.2.3.3 above. If students have only been given the opportunity to interject with short turns into a conversation over the course of the academic year, it is unfair to require them to submit to a test involving a 10-minute presentation:

The ability to produce long transactional turns, in which clear information is transferred, is, we claim, not an ability which is automatically acquired by all native speakers of a language. It is an ability which appears to need adequate models, adequate practice and feedback. […] Simply training the student to produce short turns will not automatically yield a student who can perform satisfactorily in long turns. 
(Brown and Yule, 1983b: 19)

Having chosen the type of assessment, the next question you should ask is what the criteria of assessment will be. When I was first involved in marking oral exams, I was required to interview a candidate for, maybe, 10–15 minutes and award a single percentage mark at the end.  I found this phenomenally difficult to do, but put it down to inexperience. It was only when I was invited to mark for an A level examining board that I discovered the value of assessment criteria covering several categories, for the purposes of reducing subjectivity. Such criteria also go a long way towards ensuring parity across a number of students and across several examiners (see 6.6.5 below), although any criterion is understandably open to a certain amount of interpretation. 
	Depending on the exercise, assessment categories will vary. For a presentation exercise, there may be:
•	a content mark (knowledge of the subject – evidence of research displayed, quantity, selection and use of knowledge, illustrations and examples employed); 
•	possibly a separate category for the way in which a candidate justifies an opinion (development of ideas – how relevant, depth of ideas, developed range of opinions).
Language marks may fall into the following categories:
•	pronunciation and intonation (whether comprehensible, anglicized, poor on common sounds or only difficult ones);
•	fluency / communicative competence (relationship with interlocutor, fluency throughout or only confined to pre-learned material, reliance on notes, general communication skills);
•	accuracy (general grammatical awareness, mastery of basic / higher level grammar, major or minor errors);
•	structures / vocabulary (simple or complex sentence structure, frequent repetition or good variety, idiomatic language).
Each of the categories will need to be weighted according to its perceived importance. Once this is decided, mark sheets like the ones found in Appendix 4 can be created and photocopied for each candidate. The criteria should be made explicitly available to students.

Activity 10

Choose one of the sample marking sheets in Appendix 4 that is most appropriate to a forthcoming piece of oral work you have to mark, and test it out. Evaluate its potential as a marking scheme for your classes.

	For comparison, the marking criteria used by the Institute of Linguists in their Certificates of Oral Proficiency at Intermediate and Diploma levels are given in Appendix 3. 
It may also be of interest to consider the criteria used to assess qualitative aspects of spoken language in the Common European Framework, ie:
•	range;
•	accuracy;
•	fluency;
•	interaction;
•	coherence. 

CRITERIA ON NEXT PAGE (CEF, 2002, section 3.4).

		A1	A2	B1	B2	C1	C2	
UNDER
STANDING	Listening	I can understand familiar words and very basic phrases concerning myself, my family and immediate concrete surroundings when people speak slowly and clearly.	I can understand phrases and the highest frequency vocabulary related to areas of most immediate personal relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local area, employment). I can catch the main point in short, clear, simple messages and announcements.	I can understand the main points of clear standard speech on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. I can understand the main point of many radio or TV programmes on current affairs or topics of personal or professional interest when the delivery is relatively slow and clear.	I can understand extended speech and lectures and follow even complex lines of argument provided the topic is reasonably familiar. I can understand most TV news and current affairs programmes. I can understand the majority of films in standard dialect.	I can understand extended speech even when it is not clearly structured and when relationships are only implied and not signalled explicitly. I can understand television programmes and films without too much effort.	I have no difficulty in understanding any kind of spoken language, whether live or broadcast, even when delivered at fast native speed, provided. I have some time to get familiar with the accent.	
	Reading	I can understand familiar names, words and very simple sentences, for example on notices and posters or in catalogues.	I can read very short, simple texts. I can find specific, predictable information in simple everyday material such as advertisements, prospectuses, menus and timetables and I can understand short simple personal letters.	I can understand texts that consist mainly of high frequency everyday or job-related language. I can understand the description of events, feelings and wishes in personal letters.	I can read articles and reports concerned with contemporary problems in which the writers adopt particular attitudes or viewpoints. I can understand contemporary literary prose.	I can understand long and complex factual and literary texts, appreciating distinctions of style. I can understand specialised articles and longer technical instructions, even when they do not relate to my field.	I can read with ease virtually all forms of the written language, including abstract, structurally or linguistically complex texts such as manuals, specialised articles and literary works.	

SPEAKING	Spoken Interaction	I can interact in a simple way provided the other person is prepared to repeat or rephrase things at a slower rate of speech and help me formulate what I'm trying to say. I can ask and answer simple questions in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics.	I can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar topics and activities. I can handle very short social exchanges, even though I can't usually understand enough to keep the conversation going myself.	I can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. I can enter unprepared into conversation on topics that are familiar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family, hobbies, work, travel and current events).	I can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible. I can take an active part in discussion in familiar contexts, accounting for and sustaining my views.	I can express myself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. I can use language flexibly and effectively for social and professional purposes. I can formulate ideas and opinions with precision and relate my contribution skilfully to those of other speakers.	I can take part effortlessly in any conversation or discussion and have a good familiarity with idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms. I can express myself fluently and convey finer shades of meaning precisely. If I do have a problem I can backtrack and restructure around the difficulty so smoothly that other people are hardly aware of it.	
	Spoken  Production	I can use simple phrases and sentences to describe where I live and people I know.	I can use a series of phrases and sentences to describe in simple terms my family and other people, living conditions, my educational background and my present or most recent job.	I can connect phrases in a simple way in order to describe experiences and events, my dreams, hopes and ambitions. I can briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. I can narrate a story or relate the plot of a book or film and describe my reactions.	I can present clear, detailed descriptions on a wide range of subjects related to my field of interest. I can explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.	I can present clear, detailed descriptions of complex subjects integrating sub-themes, developing particular points and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion.	I can present a clear, smoothly-flowing description or argument in a style appropriate to the context and with an effective logical structure which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points.	
WRITING	Writing	I can write a short, simple postcard, for example sending holiday greetings. I can fill in forms with personal details, for example entering my name, nationality and address on a hotel registration form.	I can write short, simple notes and messages. I can write a very simple personal letter, for example thanking someone for something.	I can write simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. I can write personal letters describing experiences and impressions.	I can write clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects related to my interests. I can write an essay or report, passing on information or giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of view. I can write letters highlighting the personal significance of events and experiences.	I can express myself in clear, well-structured text, expressing points of view at some length. I can write about complex subjects in a letter, an essay or a report, underlining what I consider to be the salient issues. I can select a style appropriate to the reader in mind.	I can write clear, smoothly-flowing text in an appropriate style. I can write complex letters, reports or articles which present a case with an effective logical structure which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points. I can write summaries and reviews of professional or literary works.	

© Council of Europe - Self-assessment grid

These criteria contribute to a final mark pegged against one of the six Common Reference Levels of attainment:
•	A1 breakthrough;
•	A2 waystage;
•	B1 threshold;
•	B2 vantage;
•	C1 effective operational efficiency;
•	C2 mastery.

6.6.2  Alternative forms of assessment
DELPHI Module 13, section 13.3, deals in detail with the question of alternative assessments, looking at self-, peer- and computer-aided assessment. We have already seen in section 6.5.4 that speaking tests devised for use on computer may not be possible. Peer assessment may work particularly well with class-based oral work, and using both this and self-assessment are a useful way of getting students to understand and ‘own’ the marking scheme.

Activity 11

Design a questionnaire that can be used for self-assessment with one of your oral classes. What sort of questions might be used? Try it out if possible and discuss it with your students. You may wish to read DELPHI section 13.3.1 first for ideas. 

6.6.3  Having realistic expectations
Section 6.2.3.3 dealt with the need for realistic expectations for spoken utterances. The focus of this section will be on differentiating between what is normal for speech and what constitutes student strategies for avoiding difficult structures. The difference between the two should be borne in mind when devising assessment guidelines for markers.
	You may recall Bygate’s exposition of the four ways a speaker facilitates the production of speech:
•	simplifying the structure;
•	ellipsis;
•	using formulaic expressions;
•	use of time-creating devices (6.2.3.3). 
Since these are strategies employed by a native speaker, they should not be penalized, although as was indicated earlier, there are higher expectations for longer transactional turns. So assessment schemes should aim to take features typical of spoken utterance into account, while at the same time penalizing those errors which are more properly what might be termed learner coping mechanisms, for example:
•	using unidiomatic phrases;
•	reduction (giving up half-way through an utterance, or falling back on some less challenging construction);
•	guessing (making words up, using anglicisms, etc);
•	avoiding more complex structures (see assuring progression, 6.6.4 below). 
For further reading on coping strategies, see Bygate (1987: 42–48).

6.6.4  Ensuring progression
6.6.4.1  Assessing the difficulty of a task

Activity 12

Look at the five oral tasks listed below and put them in order, according to how difficult you think the tasks would be, and which sort of task would be appropriate to the level(s) that you teach.

1.  Both students have photographs which are almost identical. The speaker has to describe what is in the photographs as accurately as possible in order that the listener can identify in what way his / her photograph differs from the one which the speaker is describing. 

2. The speaker has a piece of paper on which a diagram [in two colours] has been drawn. The listener has a blank sheet of paper, a black pen and a red pen. The speaker has to instruct the listener to reproduce the diagram as accurately as possible on his / her sheet of paper. The listener has to listen carefully and to follow the speaker’s instructions. 

3. The speaker has a cartoon strip story. The listener has a set of pictures which show scenes or the characters from the story and some from different stories. The speaker has to tell the story so that the listener will be able to identify which scenes or characters fit the account he / she  hears. 

4. The speaker has a set of photographs depicting a sequence of events leading up to a car crash. The listener has a road layout design on which he / she has to draw the locations and movements of the cars involved in the crash. 

5.  The learners watch a short piece of video film in which a teacher expresses a fairly strong opinion that corporal punishment is necessary in school to ensure that teachers can do their work and that students can learn. Having watched the film, learners have to say what they think about the matter. 

From Nunan, 1991: 60 (who in turn adapted it from Brown and Yule, 1983b)

Brown and Yule (1983b: 107–109) give, as a general rule of thumb, the following checklist for assessing the difficulty of a speaking task: the easiest would be a straight description, followed by telling a story, and finally justifying an opinion. The first is a static task (dealing with fixed relationships, stable properties), while the second is dynamic (involving changes of character, times, location, a progression in events), and the third is abstract (expressing ideas, opinions, constructing an argument). Nunan shows that the tasks in Activity 10 are already in increasing order of difficulty according to these criteria.
	Most degree (post-A level) activities might well be abstract tasks, so something further might be needed to distinguish between levels. More advanced programmes might want to introduce topic-based activities, with a view to laying emphasis on a research element: for example, you could start with a static relationship task in first year (eg Describing a picture / advertisement / photograph), then in second year require a presentation, prepared in advance, on a topic chosen and researched by student, followed by a presentation with no preparation for final year.

6.6.4.2  Measuring linguistic progression
The final consideration for oral assessment is whether linguistic progression can be assured or measured.  It is in theory possible to accomplish many speaking tasks, while keeping to the simplest of vocabulary and structures. In advanced language programmes, departments will want to ensure that students are encouraged to take risks, to extend their language skills, to use more and more complex structures, and to broaden their vocabulary. This consideration should be built into assessment criteria and explicitly communicated to the students.
In first year, it might be argued, the aim is to reassure students, to focus upon fluency and confidence-building in oral expression, and on accuracy in all basic grammar points . Simple language would be acceptable in first year, as long as it was grammatically accurate. Then in second year, assessment criteria would insist more on the use of increasingly complex structures, wider vocabulary and so on. Simple language which may have gained a 2/i classification in first year, will now only receive a 2/ii as progress would been expected. (Clearly, this is something that would need to be shared explicitly with students.) 
For a French oral, the marking guidelines for such a second-year assessment might look something like this:

First class
70% or more	Upper second
60%-69%	Lower second
50%-59%	Third
40%-49%	Fail
39% or less	
Accuracy of language (30%) 	
24	22	21	20	19	18	17	16	15	14	13	12	11	10	8	
•	A fail should be awarded if there is little grammatical awareness, if the majority of verb endings and gender / agreements are incorrect, if there are frequent serious errors, if poor syntax is frequently an impediment to meaning, if students frequently make mistakes such as failing to make standard contractions with articles, confusing à / a, ou / où.
•	The student(s) should not receive  a mark of more than 17 if they make frequent errors in the following categories: verb forms / agreements, direct and indirect object pronouns, qui / que, negatives, gender / agreements, imperfect / perfect or passé simple confusion, possessive adjectives. 
•	The student(s) should also not receive a mark of more than 17 if they make few errors but in unambitious language.
•	The student(s) can receive  a mark of more than 17 if they have mastered the basic areas of grammar above, but experience some difficulties in more complex areas, such as choice between definite and partitive article, complex relative pronouns (lequel, etc), subjunctive,  c’est/il est, passive, two-verb constructions with prepositions (but not basic ones like essayer de faire).
•	The student(s) can receive  a mark of more than 20 if they can communicate in complex language with few or only minor errors. These errors will be rather due of a genuine misunderstanding of a complex grammar point rather than careless slips.	
Range and complexity of language and vocab (30%)	
24	22	21	20	19	18	17	16	15	14	13	12	11	10	8	
•	A fail should be awarded if the student makes mistakes with only the simplest of sentence constructions and uses only very limited vocabulary (frequent anglicisms), and if the meaning if frequently obscured by poor syntax.
•	The student(s) should not receive  a mark of more than 17 if nearly all their sentence patterns are simple with little subordination, if they employ only a limited range of tenses and verb forms, if they rely largely on simple conjunctions and structures (c’est, il y a, parce que, etc). This should also be the case if the vocabulary employed is limited or inadequate, with words frequently employed incorrectly.
•	The student(s) can receive  a mark of more than 17 if they often employ more complex linguistic structures, together with a full range of tenses, possibly constructions requiring the subjunctive, the passive, if there is a variety of subordinate clauses, adverbs and adverbial locutions, etc. Vocabulary will be varied and interesting, with some awareness of idiom.
•	The student(s) can receive  a mark of more than 20 if they can confidently use a variety of complex sentence patterns and articulate language. Vocabulary will be idiomatic, rich, appropriate and sometimes unexpected.	

6.6.5  Ensuring equality across candidates
There do not appear to be any central guidelines for HE relating to the moderation of oral examinations to ensure equality of treatment. Having two examiners is the most sensible approach to avoid over-reliance on a single subjective voice, but even in this case, if in a large department there are several teams of examiners, steps will still need to be taken to ensure parity across teams. A moderator going from room to room, checking the way that marking is being done, in discussion with the examiners after having listened in on one or two candidates is one method. This method can also be used if it is only possible to have a single examiner.
It should be remembered that such moderation has to be done early in the day, before too many examinations have taken place. It is always sensible to record oral examinations counting towards final degrees, to have something to refer back to in the case of query or appeal. Here are the comments of a languages department examinations officer on the subject of moderation, explaining some of the difficulties which are increasingly faced:

Generally speaking we need increasingly to be able to demonstrate that we are scrutinizing moderation properly. We have had one appeal over an oral exam, which is what encouraged us to introduce recordings the following year. What we had to do the year of the appeal was to rely on notes from examiners, which weren’t very informative. The appeal was not allowed in the end but the oral mark did make a crucial difference so it was a bit awkward. The only safeguard we had at the time was the fact that externals were moving between panels so effectively standardizing them.

The best approach of all, whatever the number of examiners, is to have clear marking guidelines so as to reduce the margin for error and the risk of discrepancies between examiners. Use marksheets of the kind given as examples in Appendix 4, and in the previous section. A meeting of all examiners involved should be held in advance of the examination, to work through the guidelines and discuss their interpretation. In addition an expanded version of each mark sheet, containing explanatory notes for each section (such as those in the mark sheet in section 6.6.4.2.) could be distributed to each examiner. For further reading on ensuring equality see Underhill (1987: 88–103).

6.7  Summary
•	Speaking skills can be exercised in a variety of classes, from dedicated oral classes, to literature seminars; speaking should be integrated with other skills, and the aim should be to achieve natural dialogue that approximates what the student will be asked to do with the spoken language in other contexts. Pronunciation should, ideally, receive some attention in class time, little and often.

•	Students are often not motivated to participate in oral classes, either through personal inhibitions, or because the ‘task’ does not give them a reason to do so. Tutors can maximize the potential for participation by reducing communicative stress, by extending pauses, by having reasonable expectations of the students’ oral performance, by correcting errors sensitively and by introducing learner strategies so that students become more independent.

•	Video, audio, written and picture stimuli can be employed as a basis for speaking tasks and discussion at a variety of levels. Strategies can be employed to cope with groups containing students at different levels of competence. 

•	Students encounter obstacles when trying to practise speaking independently: they are sometimes at a loss as to how to practise, how to meet native speakers, how to assess their progress. Tutors can take steps to encourage links with native speakers and explain other methods of practising.

•	Factors need to be taken into account in designing assessment tasks, such as whether the task fits the learner outcomes, and what the criteria should be. Mark schemes play an  important role in ensuring parity of treatment and in reducing subjectivity.  Learning programmes should incorporate progression criteria into assessment tasks.

6.8  Commentary on activities
Activity 3
The most obvious point is that you cannot please all the people all the time. Perhaps unsurprisingly, different students like different things, so the key is variety, both with the same class and from class to class.  Some students like games, others enjoy video work, others prefer debates (quite a number in this last category; debates and discussions are possibly more popular with final years, who have a more advanced command of the language).
A relaxed atmosphere is generally considered conducive to more fluent speaking – fun, friendly, amusing are the key words that are repeated. Pair and group work is popular, although several students seem to enjoy whole-class discussions. The topics must be real, up-to-the-minute, on themes that students feel qualified to comment on.
Note the comment about making daft mistakes – here’s a student who isn’t aware of how natural it is to make more mistakes in oral language, and of how different this is from the high standards of accuracy required in written work. For what to suggest to student 6, worried about her clumsy mental translation, see section 6.4.3. NB also see student 16 – the perception that the class should measure not develop speaking skills.

Activity 5
The features include: relatively simple clause structures; clauses following on with no explicit statement of the relationship between the two (‘writing for flora of Turkey’, ‘they haven’t got the scientists’); incomplete sentences; non-specific words and phrases (‘they’, ‘it’, ‘the others’, ‘sort of’, ‘somehow’, etc); use of interactive expressions (‘well’, ‘uhuh’); less densely packed information; few complex noun groups – one piece of information added at a time (Brown and Yule, 1983b: 5–7).

6.9 Appendices

Appendix 1

How to reduce communicative stress 
(material relating to section 6.2.3.1)

1. Features of the context:
i) the listener – it is easier for the speaker if the listener is one of his peers or ‘junior’ to him. It is easier for him to talk to one listener than to many.
ii) the situation – it is easier for the speaker if he is speaking in a familiar, private environment.

2. State of knowledge of the listener:
i) the language – it is helpful for the speaker if the listener knows as much of the target language as the speaker does.
ii) the information – it is helpful for the speaker if he has information which the listener does not have but which the listener, for some reason, needs. This puts the speaker firmly in control of the information and motivates him to communicate that information.

3. Type of task:
i) status of knowledge – it is helpful for the speaker if the information he has control of is of a familiar sort so that he understands it thoroughly. It is helpful if he is familiar with the foreign-language vocabulary which is essential to the completion of the task.
ii) structure of the task – it is helpful to the speaker if the information in the task provides its own structure so that the language is externally supported by the requirements of the task. Thus it is easier for any speaker to give an account of a series of events than it is to provide an argument for why those events occurred in that order.

(From Brown and Yule, 1983b: 34)

Appendix 2

Guidelines for videoed group presentation (edited)
(This project was devised and written by Mrs Agnès Gower, Language Tutor in the Department of French Studies, University of Birmingham.)

General Module Information
Semester 1: Students will select one from a range of suggested texts in French, make an independent study of its author, themes and vocabulary, then write a report on this text of 1000 words in total (+/-10% excluding footnotes and bibliography), take part in a videoed oral presentation about it and produce a group logbook.

As a result of this module, students will be able to:
•	read and evaluate independently a text in French of about 10,000 words;
•	analyse aspects of its vocabulary;
•	research and retrieve information about it;
•	present some important facets of the text and discuss some of its themes;
•	write and put together a substantial piece of work in French;
•	work as a team.

They will also have acquired:
•	word-processing and IT skills;
•	organization, planning, decision making, time-keeping and communication skills;
•	presentational skills.

What books should we read?
Students should choose one of the books in the list below.  
No more than 7 students should read the same book.

Proposed books:	Related videos	Topics	Warning	
Azouz Begag, 
Le Gône du Chaaba, 
Seuil
1986

ISBN: 2-02-009050-3	Le Gone du Chaaba, 
Christophe Ruggia, 2001

Mise au point: France accueil ou écueil?
Open University
1996
Le gone du Chaâba: interview d’ Azouz Begag et ses parents.	Immigration, intégration		
Lucie Aubrac,
Ils partiront dans l’ivresse, 
Points Seuil
1984

ISBN: 2-02-031654-4
	Lucie Aubrac,
Claude Berri
1998	Collaboration/ Resistance, vivre pendant l’Occupation		
Bertrand Tavernier & Dominique Sampiero, 
Ça commence aujourd’hui, 
Mango Pratique Fontaine Eds
1999

ISBN: 2-84270-135-6
	Ça commence aujourd’hui,
Bertrand Tavernier,
1999	La fracture sociale, l’exclusion, la pauvreté, le rôle de l’école		
Matthieu Kassovitz,
Jusqu’ici tout va bien
Editeur: Actes Sud
1995

ISBN: 2-7427-0561-9
	La Haine,
Matthieu Kassovitz
1995	La jeunesse dans les “banlieues”, les relations avec la police, l’immigration	Ce livre et ce film contiennent un vocabulaire qui peut choquer	
Francis Veber
Le Dîner de cons, 
Pocket
1994

ISBN: 2-266-07299-4
	Le Dîner de cons
Francis Veber
Gaumont
1998	Les classes sociales, la moquerie, la sincérité		

•	Copies of the books are available from the Main Library (mostly on renewable week loan, one copy on short loan).
•	Waterstone’s, the bookshop on campus, will also have a few copies of the books.
•	Copies of the tapes are available from the from the LMRC (on short or week loan) 

 The written assignment is not an essay.  It should not be presented as one.

What format should the oral presentation be:
•	The presentations will be videoed by the tutor.
•	The presentation must be a group presentation: ie it must involve the 3 to 7 students that form your group.  Individual presentations will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances (ie prolonged illness covered by appropriate medical notes, student joining the course late in the semester).
•	Students must speak for the required length of time (see p 40).
•	Students must not read their presentation.  Notes are allowed, but reading sentences that are completely written out will be severely penalized.
•	Students must all make use of some visual aids (video, overhead projector (OHP), props) during their presentation.  
Visual aids must be used appropriately (ie at the right time, without breaking the flow of the presentation.  OHP slides must be clear and left on long enough for the audience to be able to read them.  Any video extract must be cued.)
•	Students must try and make their presentation as lively and as intellectually stimulating as possible.
•	It can take the form of a role play, with students: 
a)	taking roles as critics, journalists, booksellers, agents or ordinary members of the public;
b)	pretending to be in a TV studio recording a TV programme dealing with the book or the film;
c)	pretending they are doing a presentation about books in front of an audience of people studying the book for their A level.

 If you have other ideas for the format of your presentation, discuss them with Mrs Gower.

What could we talk about during the presentation?
•	Presenting the book/film.
•	Presenting the author and / or the film director.
•	Examining the title: what did it make you think about? Does the title reflect the content of the book/film well?
•	Discussing the key issues the book / film raises and the way the issues are dealt with in it.
•	Comparing the novel with the film adaptation.
•	Comparing the screenplay with the film.
•	Examining how the director has filmed scenes described in the screenplay.
•	Giving your views on the book and the film adaptation.
•	Comparing the book / film with others you know on the same topic.

 Please note that you must not say the same thing in your presentation and in your written assignment.  If you do, you will be severely penalized.

How long must each student speak for?
Each student will speak for about 5 minutes (+/- 10%, ie between 4 min 30 sec and 5  min 30 sec). 

To help you estimate how long your script should be, use the following guideline: on average people say three words a second, this means that a three-minute presentation should represent a script of about 900 words.

When can we meet as a group?
Each group will have two timetabled hours a week.  These hours are compulsory in the same way as any other lecture or seminar.
•	One to meet with the module convenor.  Check the notice board to see which of the two hours is set aside for your meetings with the convenor.  It may vary from week to week.  A room will be indicated for your meetings with the convenor.
•	One to meet with your teammates to discuss the format of the presentations.  For these meetings no venue is pre-booked for you.  You will have to find your own meeting place. 

•	You may need to find additional time to meet on you own (all or part of the group) in the place of your choice to finalise some details. It all depends on how well you use the set hours. The more time you waste early on, the more additional time you will need to find towards the end of the semester.

Suggested weekly programme	
	To do on your own before set meetings	To do during the two timetabled hours	
	•		Meetings with Agnès Gower	Compulsory meetings without the tutor	
2	
	Compulsory meeting Thursday at 11-12 .  Please bring your timetable and e-mail address with you. 
•	Presentation of the module
•	Put in place a system for people to communicate with each other (pigeonholes, e-mail, phone, messages on the notice board…) 	Thursday 12-1: 
•	Go to the Library  to look at the books and the LMRC to get the video.  
•	Set the date, time, venue and agenda for the next meeting.	
3	•	Read the pack so you have more of an idea what it is all going to be about.
•	Have a think on your own about which of the suggested books you want to work on before the meeting to make good use of the meeting time.
•	Decide which book / video to work on, borrow it and bring it to the class.	Compulsory consultation Thursday 11-121 
•	Tutor creates groups according to the student’s choice of books.
•	Please bring the book you have chosen to the class
•	Do some work on the books.
	Thursday 12-1:
•	Have a brainstorm about what type of presentation you would like to make.
	
4	•	Start reading the book and watch the video immediately. (Remember you can watch the video as a group in the group study room in the LMRC)
•	Think seriously about what you want to say in your presentation.  Bring ideas to the group meeting.	Compulsory consultation1 
•	Do some guided work on the books (bring the book to the class)
•	Give some pointers for a good oral presentation.	During the other hour:
•	Sort out what format your oral presentation is going to be: what each of you is going to talk about.  Are people going to talk one after the other, or is it going to take the form of a debate, an interview?  Are you going to do a role-play?	
5	•	Sort out the script according to what you have decided.  Pay particular attention to grammar and vocabulary, be careful in particular not to invent words, to use correct genders, verb forms, agreements.  Be careful about the register: your presentation can be colloquial or formal but it must not be rude!
•	Write your script directly in French.  Do not write it in English and then translate, as this is a recipe for disaster!	Compulsory consultation.1 
•	Field questions on the oral group presentation.
•	Do some work on how to do a good presentation 	During the other set hour: 
•	Everybody should have a script nearly ready 
•	Compare your scripts, make sure they are compatible.  If not, make necessary adjustments.	
6	Self-study week : no meeting 	
7	•	Work on your written assignment.
•	Finalise your script and prepare a list of questions to ask your tutor about problems of grammar or vocabulary you have encountered when trying to write your script.	Compulsory consultation.
•	Ask your tutor if you have things you do not know how to express in French.
•	Now is the time to ask for any clarification about the presentation.
•	Get advice on OHP slides.
	Compulsory meetings without the tutor during the other set hour:
•	Make sure everybody knows exactly what their role is. 
•	Think of any props, video extracts, OHP slides that may be necessary for your presentation.  Decide who will prepare them (it should not all fall on the same shoulders), make sure they are ready on time.	
8	•	Correct the scripts and make any necessary changes to the presentation plan.  
•	Practise delivering your presentation on your own.	No compulsory meeting but Mrs Gower is available for group or individual consultation on Thursday from 11-1 in her office.

	During the other set hour:
•	Do a group rehearsal and make any necessary changes to the scripts.
•	Make sure you inform the rest of your team of any changes you make to your script so that people do not miss their cue on D-day.	
9	•	Practise delivering your script
•	Practise your pronunciation in the lab if it is one of your weak points
•	Try rehearsing your presentation with a friend to get used to speaking with an audience	Compulsory small group consultation.1 
	During the other set hour:
•	Have a meeting each week to finalize details of the group presentation: have a group rehearsal.  Go into a room that has an OHP to practise.	
10	•	Work on your written assignment.
•	Polish your oral presentation delivery.	No compulsory meeting but Mrs Gower is available for group or individual consultation on Thursday from 11-1 in her office.	•	Have a meeting to finalise details of the group presentation.
•	Have a group rehearsal (with an OHP).  	
11	•	Do group oral presentations Thursday 11–1 or Friday am according to room and staff availability and the number of students doing presentations.
•	Hand in the project logbook by Friday 3 pm to the Humanities General Office, 4th floor, Muirhead.
•	Hand in your written assignment to Mrs Gower’s pigeon-hole by Friday 5pm.

•	Always have your timetable / diary with you so that you can arrange meetings, book facilities.
•	If you find that you are not able to use facilities at the time you booked them for, please cancel your booking so that other groups can use the facilities.

Appendix 3

Institute of Linguists’ oral proficiency criteria 
(material relating to section 6.6.1)

For the Certificate in Oral Proficiency for the Intermediate Diploma, candidates are required first to deliver a five-minute presentation prepared in advance from a prescribed list of broad subject areas (eg ‘education and training’, ‘travel narrows the mind’), making reference to their target-language country, and answer questions on it for a further five minutes. Presentations must contain facts, ideas, arguments and opinions, and should be delivered rather than read. The second task involves sustaining a position according to a given brief based upon a scenario. Candidates must use the given information to sustain the discussion, use appropriate strategies to put across their argument, and counter opposing points of view.

Candidates are marked on Task 1 for:
a)	content of the presentation;
b)	discussion – how the candidates handle questions, requests for clarification, counter arguments;
c)	accuracy of language and clarity of pronunciation;
d)	appropriateness of register, range of structures. 
For Task 2 the categories are:
 a) content: whether information furnished to the candidate has been understood and relevantly applied; 
b) content: whether contributions to discussion are apposite, appropriate to cultural / social norms of the situation; 
c)accuracy of language and clarity of pronunciation;
d) appropriateness of register, range of structures. 
A mark of 0, 1, 2 or 3 is awarded for each criterion, giving a possible total of 12 for each task.

For the Institute of Linguists’ Certificate in Oral Proficiency for Diploma Level, candidates receive a dossier in advance of the test, containing texts in both their native language and the L2, relating to a topic of international or binational, bicultural concern. Together with this they receive a brief explaining the task and its context.  As well as highlighting the background of the topic, the L2 materials will throw light on the special interests of the L2-speaking organization and give an indication of the line the “opposition” is likely to take.  The materials in the L1, conversely, will give candidates a guideline as to the position they are expected to adopt. On the day of the test, candidates receive a written brief detailing the arrangements for the fifteen-minute face-to-face oral interaction, in which a position is presented, justified, defended, a contrasting position is critically appraised, problem-solving is attempted and an outcome is achieved.  The candidate has forty-five minutes in which to review the dossier and prepare specific notes as an aid to arguing the case.  The L2 speaker also has a detailed brief with instructions on how to conduct his or her side of the interaction.  Typical contexts would be visiting trade delegations, cultural exchanges, development of tourism, conference participation, promotional tours, arranging sports events, twinning and other civil contacts.
	Three aspects are considered for assessment purposes: 
a)	general presentation of background information from dossier;
b)	responses to specific questioning;
c)	responses to follow-up questions, challenges, counter-argument, unexpected developments in the course of the discussion. 
Each aspect is assessed for:
a)	relevance, accuracy and completeness of content;
b)	appropriateness of language, register;
c)	effectiveness of strategies, confidence, fluency, ability to use interpersonal skills in L2.

(Reproduced by kind permission of the Institute of Linguists)

Appendix 4a

Sample mark sheet for an oral examination

	I	IIi	IIii	III	Fail	
	80%	70%	65%	60%	55%	50%	45%	40%	35%	30%	
Communicative competence (10%)	8	7	6.5	6	5.5	5	4.5	4	3.5	3	
Pronunciation / 
Intonation (20%)	16	14	13	12	11	10	9	8	7	6	
Range of structures and accuracy (40%)	32	28	26	24	22	20	18	16	14	12	
Description /  development of ideas (30%)	24	21	19.5	18	16.5	15	13.5	12	10.5	9	
Extend to full page, for examiner’s comments
...
…	
Circle one mark on each line, then add together to produce a final mark.

Appendix 4b

Sample mark sheet for an oral presentation

	I	IIi	IIii	III	Fail	
	80%	75%	70%	65%	60%	55%	50%	45%	40%	35%	30%	
Communicative 
Competence, use & 	12	11.2	10.5	9.75	9	8.25	7.5	6.75	6	5.25	4.5	
Quality of visual aids, length (15%)
	 	
Pronunciation /
 Intonation (15%)	12	11.2	10.5	9.75	9	8.25	7.5	6.75	6	5.25	4.5	
		
Language: range of structures, choice 	24	22.5	21	19.5	18	16.5	15	13.5	12	10.5	9	
of vocabulary and accuracy of usage (30%)
		
Content (20%)
	16	15	14	13	12	11	10	9	8	7	6	

Structure; use of link words & 	16	15	14	13	12	11	10	9	8	7	6	
Clarity of the structure (20%)
		
Circle one mark on each line (or circle two marks to be more precise).  Add the marks to get the final percentage.

Second marker comments:  

Appendix 4c

Sample mark sheet for group oral presentation 
(the videoed project mentioned in 6.3.2)

	I	IIi	IIii	III	Fail	
	80%	75%	70%	65%	60%	55%	50%	45%	40%	35%	30%	
Communicative competence (10% of 60%)	4.8	4.5	4.2	3.9	3.6	3.3	3	2.7	2.4	2.1	1.8	
		
Pronunciation/ Intonation (20% of 60%)	9.6	9.0	8.4	7.8	7.2	6.6	6	5.4	4.8	4.2	3.6	
		
Language (60% of 60%)	28.8	27	25.2	23.4	21.6	19.8	18	16.2	14.4	12.6	10.8	
		
Peer assessment (10% of 60%)	4.8	4.5	4.2	3.9	3.6	3.3	3	2.7	2.4	2.1	1.8	
Total for personal mark: ............ / 60	
Quality of the logbook (20%of 40%)	6.4	6	5.6	5.2	4.8	4.4	4	3.6	3.2	2.8	2.4	
		
Quality of the visual aids (20%of 40%)	6.4	6	5.6	5.2	4.8	4.4	4	3.6	3.2	2.8	2.4	
		
Content, evidence of research, coherence and originality (60% of 40%)	19.4	18	16.6	15.2	14.7	13.2	12	10.8	9.6	8.4	7.2	
		
Total for group mark: .............. / 40	

6.10 References
Barley, A (1990) Making the Most of Audio, CILT, London
Brown, G and Yule, G (1983a) Discourse Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brown, G and Yule, G (1983b) Teaching the Spoken Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brown, H D (2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 4th edition, Longman, New York
Brown, H D (2001) Teaching by Principles, 2nd edition, Longman, New York
Brumfit, C (1984) Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bygate, M (1987) Speaking, Oxford University Press, Oxford
CEF (2002) A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Available at 
 www.culture2.coe.int/portfolio/documents_intro/common_framework.html.
Chapelle, C (1998) Multimedia CALL, Language Learning Technology, 2, 22–34.  Available online at ttp://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol2num1/article1/index.html
Cohen, A D (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language, Longman, London
Cooper, R, Lavey, M and Rinvolucri, M (1991) Video, Oxford University Press,  Oxford
D’Antin, F C F  (1967) Mots d’heures: gousses, rames, edited and annotated by L D’Antin van Rooten, Angus and Robertson, London
Grauberg, W (1997) The Elements of Foreign Language Teaching, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon
Fawkes, S (1999) Switched On? Video resources in modern language settings, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon
Field, K (1999) Developing productive language skills – speaking and writing, in Teaching Modern Foreign Languages at Advanced Level, ed N Pachler, pp 184–208, Routledge, London
Grenfell, M and Harris, V (1999) Modern Languages and Learning Strategies, Routledge, London
Hess, N (2001) Teaching Large Multilevel Classes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hill, B (1999) Video in Language Learning, CILT, London
James, C (1998) Errors in Language Learning and Use, Longman, London 
Johnson, K (1996) Language Teaching and Skill Learning, Blackwell, Oxford
Johnstone, R (1989) Communicative Interaction, CILT, London

Littlewood, W (1981) Communicative Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Lonergan, J (1984) Video in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Macaro, E (2000) Issues in target language teaching, in Issues in Modern Foreign Languages Teaching, ed K Field, pp 171–89, Routledge, London
Nunan, D (1991) Language Teaching Methodology, Prentice Hall, New York
Nunan, D and Lamb, C (1996) The Self-Directed Teacher, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pachler, N (1999), Theories of learning and ICT, in Learning to Teach using ICT in the Secondary School, ed M Learsk and N Pachler, Routledge, London Available online at www.e-lisa.at/magazine/tellcall/3_99pdf/03tel_02.pdf 
Pachler, N (2002) Speech technologies and foreign language teaching and learning’, Language Learning Journal, 26, 54–61. Available online at http://www.ioe.ac.uk/lie/pgce/software.html 
Stempleski, S and Tomalin, B (1990) Video in Action, Prentice Hall, New York
Swain, M (2000), The output hypothesis and beyond, in Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, ed J Lantolf, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Underhill, N (1987) Testing Spoken Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ur, P (1981) Discussions that Work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ur, P (1991) A Course in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wenden, A (1987) Incorporating learner training in the classroom, in Learner strategies in language learning, in A Wenden and J Rubin, Prentice Hall, London
Willis, J and Willis, D (eds) (1996) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, Macmillan Heinemann, Oxford

6.11 Recommended further reading

A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment 
The full text of the CEF can be downloaded from
 www.culture2.coe.int/portfolio/documents_intro/common_framework.html  and this site also gives details of how a hard copy may be purchased.

Brown, G and Yule, G (1983) Teaching the Spoken Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
	The subtitle of this is ‘An approach based upon the analysis of conversational English’, but it contains many useful transferable ideas.

Bygate, M (1987) Speaking, Oxford University Press, Oxford
	Again, for EFL teachers, but it is very detailed.

Nunan, D and Lamb, C (1996) The Self-Directed Teacher, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
	The reader is directed principally to the chapter on classroom talk (pp 60–103), which is primarily about teacher talk.

Underhill, N (1987) Testing Spoken Language: A handbook of oral testing techniques, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
	A comprehensive review of techniques required to design, implement, mark and evaluate oral assessment tools.

Ur, P (1981) Discussions That Work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
	EFL, but contains lots of practical examples, for use with different levels.

Ur, P (1991) A Course in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press Cambridge
	Whereas the previous text focuses on speaking skills, this is more comprehensive, but the chapters on speaking, assessment and pronunciation contain updates and new ideas.

6.12  Assessment Task

1.	Critique. Write a critique of the way your speaking classes / seminars are currently structured. You might want to refer back to the statements you ticked in Activity 1, explaining how your beliefs have informed your current practice. Examine areas of weakness in the current approach, and consider the steps that might be taken to improve on these areas in future classes.

2.	Lesson plan. Write two lesson plans, using two different stimuli, preferably ones that you have not tried before, appropriate to two different levels that you are currently involved in teaching (eg post-GCSE and second-year post A level). Think about what pre- and follow-up tasks might be included, whether you might build in any pronunciation or learner strategy practice. Accompany each lesson plan with a commentary, explaining your choices at every stage.