Identifying Strategies that facilitate EFL learners' oral communication , a classroom study using mu

Identifying Strategies That FacilitateEFL Learners’ Oral Communication:A Classroom Study Using MultipleData Collection ProceduresYASUO NAKATANITokyo University of ScienceSchool of Management500 Shimokiyoku, Kuki-shiSaitama-ken 346-8512JapanEmail: [email protected]

This article considers whether the use of specific communication strategies can improve learn-ers’ English proficiency in communicative tasks. Japanese college students (n = 62) participatedin a 12-week course of English lessons using a communicative approach with strategy training.To investigate the influence of specific strategy use, their performance on a posttraining con-versation test was analyzed through multiple data collection procedures. Transcripts of the testwere made and then analyzed in terms of production rate, the number of errors, and actualstrategy use. An Oral Communication Strategy Inventory was introduced to elicit participants’communication strategy use for a self-report questionnaire procedure. These results were com-pared with participants’ retrospective protocol data regarding their oral test performance. Thefindings confirmed that strategies for maintaining discourse and negotiation of meaning couldenhance learners’ communicative ability. Yet the students used a relatively small number ofexamples of modified output, which indicated that they might not have enough opportunitiesto improve the form of their utterances.

NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADEby researchers to show the effects of learn-ing strategies on target language (TL) develop-ment (e.g., Cohen, Weaver, & Li, 1998; O’Malley& Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1996; Rubin, 1975).Learning strategies are the conscious thoughtsand behaviors used by learners to help them bet-ter understand, learn, and remember the TL in-formation. Researchers also recognize that learn-ers can improve their communicative ability bydeveloping learning strategies that enable them tobecome independent learners of the TL (Dadour& Robbins, 1996; Labarca & Khanji, 1986), reflect-ing the widely held belief that strategies for com-

The Modern Language Journal, 94, i, (2010)0026-7902/10/116–136 $1.50/0C©2010 The Modern Language Journal

munication relate to successful language perfor-mance (e.g., Dornyei, 1995; Huang & Naerssen,1987; Rost & Ross, 1991). The main reason is thatthe use of communication strategy (CS) can solvecommunicative disruptions and enhance interac-tion in the TL (Dornyei & Scott, 1997; Faerch &Kasper, 1983a; Tarone, 1980).

In particular, the role of specific strategies suchas negotiation of meaning has been an impor-tant object of study for a long time (e.g., Long,1983; Pica, 2002; Varonis & Gass, 1985). However,most of these studies were conducted in exper-imental settings and only a few studies have ex-plored second language (L2) learners’ actual CSuse in classroom contexts (Foster, 1998; Williams,Inscoe, & Tasker, 1997). We should not over-look Foster’s (1998) claim that there is little re-search that has demonstrated a direct relationship

Yasuo Nakatani 117

between the incidence of strategies for negoti-ation and an increase in language proficiencyin classroom contexts. Additionally, the majorityof negotiation research has not included othertypes of CSs, such as using fillers or shadow-ing as communication enhancers for maintain-ing and developing TL discourse. As Williamset al. (1997) argued, learners also need to usesuch strategies to develop their interaction in ac-tual communicative contexts; thus, it is worth-while to examine the effect of such strategyuse.

Another problematic issue is that the re-search in interlanguage (IL) negotiation has an-alyzed learners’ interaction by a single method—transcription data analysis—which makes itdifficult to interpret learners’ actual intentionof specific strategy use. Researchers claim thatthe nature of the available data on strategies de-pends on the collection method, and there seemsto be no fully established set of assessment pro-cedures yet (Cohen, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot,1990). Therefore, to compensate for problemsinherent in the single method, it is essential tointroduce multiple data collection procedures toobtain more accurate and valid data on learners’cognitive process and strategy use.

By combining several assessment methods, thisstudy addresses the question of whether theuse of CSs that include not only negotiation ofmeaning but also communication enhancers candevelop English as a foreign language (EFL)learners’ oral proficiency in classroom settings.Sixty-two Japanese college students participatedin a 12-week course of English lessons based ona communicative approach with explicit strategytraining. They had a conversation test before andafter the training. I transcribed the posttrainingtest to analyze whether participants’ actual strat-egy use, production rates, and the number of er-rors have an effect on students’ TL development.As a reliable questionnaire method, this studyused the Oral Communication Strategy Inventory(OCSI), which was developed by using factor anal-ysis based on a survey of 400 Japanese students(Nakatani, 2006). Additionally, the participantsreviewed their task performance by listening tothe audiotape recorded during the conversationtest and provided a retrospective think-aloud pro-tocol. I also transcribed these data and examinedparticipants’ awareness of specific strategy usage.Although this triangulated approach revealed aslight difference among the results of respectiveanalyses, I suggest that the use of specific CSs forinteraction could improve EFL learners’ oral pro-ficiency.

BACKGROUND

Definition of Communication Strategies

Tarone, Cohen, and Dumas (1976) were thefirst to recognize learners’ problem-solving behav-ior during TL communication as “communica-tion strategy.” They discussed that learners tendto use CSs to compensate for their lack of ap-propriate TL knowledge when expressing or de-coding the meaning of their intended utterances.Tarone (1980) regarded CSs as the “mutual at-tempts of two interlocutors to agree on a meaningin a situation where the requisite meaning struc-tures do not seem to be shared” (p. 420). Sheemphasized interactional aspects of CSs that con-tain any attempts to avoid communication disrup-tions. Much attention has been paid to CSs sinceCanale and Swain (1980) presented their influen-tial model of communicative competence. As oneof the subcompetencies in the model, they de-fined CSs as strategic competence involving theability to use verbal and nonverbal strategies toavoid communication breakdowns that might becaused by learners’ lack of appropriate knowl-edge of the TL. They noted that low-level studentscould benefit from learning effective CSs such asparaphrasing, using gestures, and asking ques-tions for clarification. Canale (1983) extendedthe concept of CSs to include not only strategiesto compensate for disruptions in communicationproblems due to speakers’ insufficient TL knowl-edge but also strategies to enhance the effective-ness of communication with interlocutors.

A broader definition of CSs was proposed byFaerch and Kasper (1983a, 1983b, 1984), who em-phasized the planning and execution of speechproduction. They claimed that to solve commu-nication problems, a learner does not only coop-erate with his or her interlocutor but also findsa solution himself or herself without cooperativeassistance. This view led to further research con-centrating on learners’ internal mental activities,such as CS use for solving lexical problems (e.g.,Poulisse, 1987; Poulisse, Bongaerts, & Kellerman,1987).

The studies of Faerch and Kasper (1983a, 1984)looked closely at EFL learners’ corpus data andcategorized CSs into two types: Achievement strate-gies and reduction strategies. The former enableslearners to work on an alternative plan for reach-ing the original goal by means of whatever re-sources are available. The latter lets learners avoidsolving a communication problem and allowsthem to give up on conveying the original mes-sage. Achievement strategies, in turn, consist of

118 The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010)

compensatory strategies and retrieval strategies. Theformer include codeswitching , interlingual trans-fer , intralingual transfer , IL–based strategies, coop-erative strategies, and nonlinguistic strategies. Thelatter are used when learners have difficulties inretrieving specific IL items. Reduction strategiesconsists of formal reduction strategies—using a re-duced system to avoid producing nonfluent or in-correct utterances—and function reduction strate-gies—avoiding a specific topic or giving up onsending a message.

In short, CSs can be regarded as any attempts bylearners to overcome their difficulties and gener-ate the TL to achieve communicative goals in ac-tual interaction. In particular, learners need thesestrategies to use in the TL when they do not sharelinguistic, discoursal, and sociolinguistic informa-tion with their interlocutors. By utilizing thesestrategies, they can recognize their own deficien-cies and employ specific strategies to negotiatemeaning and produce the TL. These behaviors of-fer learners sufficient opportunities to learn howto solve communication problems while maintain-ing conversation flow. When learners face difficultinformation, by using CSs they can experience theprocess of comprehending information input andthus have a chance to facilitate their own TL acqui-sition. These strategies allow learners to remainin the conversation, which provides them with op-portunities to hear more TL input and producenew utterances. Consequently, the use of CSs canhave a significant learning effect for EFL learners.Therefore, CSs should be regarded as a subset oflearning strategies, which contain both skills forlearning a language and applications of them inreal communicative contexts.

However, as Dornyei and Scott (1997) pointedout, researchers have used several competing tax-onomies of CSs. In particular, two representa-tive definition groups have evolved. The inter-actional view (e.g., Rost & Ross, 1991; Tarone,1980; Williams et al., 1997) focuses on the inter-action between interlocutors and negotiation ofmeaning. In this view, CSs are regarded as com-prising not only problem-solving phenomena tocompensate for communication disruptions butalso a pragmatic discourse function as messageenhancers. The psycholinguistic view (e.g., Faerch& Kasper, 1983a; Kellerman & Bialystok, 1997; Lit-tlemore, 2001; Poulisse et al., 1987) focuses onthe range of problem-solving activities open tothe individual. Researchers of a psycholinguisticorientation concentrate on lexical compensatorystrategies and exclude other areas of strategy use.

The position adopted here is close to thatof the interactional view, which investigates EFL

learners’ strategy use during interaction with theircommunication partners in classroom tasks. Thefocus is on the examination of the claim that CSscan be used by learners with limited knowledgeof the TL to maximize their potential for inter-personal communication (e.g., Bejarano, Levine,Olshtain, & Steiner, 1997; Clennel, 1995; Dornyei,1995). To avoid confusion, the term oral communi-cation strategy (OCS) is used instead of communica-tion strategy. OCSs highlight interlocutors’ nego-tiation behavior for coping with communicationbreakdowns and their use of communication en-hancers.

Strategies for Negotiation of Meaningand Communication Enhancers

A considerable number of studies have beenconducted on the learning effects of interlocu-tors’ mutual attempts to avoid and repair impassesin the TL (e.g., Doughty & Pica, 1986; Pica, 2002;Pica & Doughty, 1985; Varonis & Gass, 1985). Suchstrategic behavior for solving interaction prob-lems is defined as negotiation of meaning (Varonis& Gass, 1985). An interlocutor’s signals for ne-gotiation of meaning can be divided into compre-hension checks, confirmation checks, and clarificationrequests (Long, 1983). Comprehension checks arewhen interlocutors try to acknowledge whetherothers have understood the preceding utterances.Confirmation checks occur when interlocutors at-tempt to ensure their own understanding of oth-ers’ preceding utterances, which can be realizedby repeating or paraphrasing what the previousspeaker said. Clarification requests are when in-terlocutors seek assistance in understanding oth-ers’ preceding utterances. Through employingsuch strategies for negotiation, learners can re-ceive comprehensible input and have opportuni-ties for modifying their output. In other words,learners can comprehend and produce messagesbeyond their current IL receptive and expressivecapacities through negotiation of meaning.

Some researchers, however, have argued thatthe evidence collected in support of the benefitsof meaning negotiation is not plentiful or entirelyconvincing (e.g., Foster, 1998; Porter, 1986; Ske-han, 1998). In particular, there is little researchsupporting a direct link between negotiation be-haviors and TL acquisition. Furthermore, previ-ous negotiation research has not included othertypes of CSs (see, e.g., Yule & Tarone, 1991). Inactual communication, interlocutors have to usemany strategies, such as maintaining discourseand buying time to think. In line with Canale’s(1983) definition, it is reasonable to consider that

Yasuo Nakatani 119

CSs consist of any attempts to solve communica-tion problems and enhance communication withinterlocutors. Therefore, it is appropriate to an-alyze learners’ discourse data by focusing on notonly negotiation devices but also other strategiesfor maintaining and developing interaction. Toextrapolate pedagogical implications, investigat-ing the effect of various CSs on learners’ per-formance in classroom contexts is essential. Yet,to date, there are few studies that utilize this ex-panding view of CSs (e.g., Nakahama, Tyler, & vanLier, 2001; Williams et al., 1997). Moreover, thesestudies dealt with a small number of participantsand used a single data collecting method basedon transcription analysis. Furthermore, some re-searchers (e.g., Chen, 1990; Huang & Naerssen,1987; Rost & Ross, 1991) argued that the typeand frequency of strategy use for communicationvaries according to learners’ oral proficiency level,and low-proficiency students could have difficul-ties in choosing appropriate strategies and recog-nizing the effects of using strategies. Thus, it isimportant to examine whether the use of OCSsis equivalent across high- and low-proficiency stu-dents. The current research attempts to provideseveral insights into whether the use of a specificstrategy for interaction impacts on EFL perfor-mance with multiple data analyses.

METHODS

Research Questions

Japanese college students enrolled in 12-weekEFL courses participated in this experiment. Thisstudy investigated which strategy use contributedto the development of oral proficiency in class-room contexts. For this purpose, the followingthree research questions were addressed:

1. What kinds of variables in learners’ discoursecontribute to oral proficiency development?

2. What is the relationship between the fre-quency of oral communication strategy use andposttest scores?

3. Are the retrospective verbal report protocolsregarding oral communication strategy use equiv-alent across high- and low-proficiency students?

Participants

The participants were 62 female students en-rolled in mixed-level EFL classes at a private col-lege in Japan. Each student had completed 6 yearsof English study prior to entering the college.Their ages ranged from 18 to 19. All of them

had attended local public or private high schools,which prepared them for college entrance exam-inations. Their English proficiency, especially lis-tening comprehension, was quite low, with scoresranging from 200 to 530 on the Test of Englishfor International Communication administeredby the Educational Testing Service (ETS).

Teaching Procedures

The students have one 90-minute English les-son per week with a Japanese instructor for a to-tal of 24 class meetings a year. The current studywas conducted at the end of the first term, whenthey had completed the initial 12 weeks of an EFLcourse based on a communicative approach. Thesyllabus outline for the strategy-based conversa-tion course can be seen in Appendix A. To en-hance students’ strategy use for communication,an OCS guide sheet (Appendix B) was provided tothem during the introduction lesson in Week 1 ofthe second term. The sheet consists of examplesof each strategy of which students could make usein each lesson.

The strategy training consisted of a five-phaseinstructional sequence: Review, presentation, re-hearsal, performance, and evaluation (see Ap-pendix C). In the review phase, the studentsreflected on the previous lesson and repeatedthe simulation task at the beginning of eachnew lesson, which enabled them to warm upfor a new task. In the presentation stage, ac-cording to the instructor’s guidelines, the stu-dents recognized the goals and procedures ofthe new task and discussed, through brainstorm-ing sessions, basic dialogues that they were askedto create and the possible OCSs for doing so.During the next stage, the students rehearsedonce with their peers and made plans for usingspecific OCSs. Students could locate whateverstrategies from the lists they thought would be use-ful for interaction in the tasks. When they thenperformed the tasks, they monitored their ownperformance. They were encouraged to use OCSsintentionally during the task. During the evalua-tion stage, the students checked and reflected ontheir own learning. They reviewed strategy use.Accordingly, they were encouraged to use OCSsconsciously during preparation, self-monitoring,and self-evaluation for their task performance.

Data Collection Procedures

Conversation Test . Pretest and posttest conver-sation tasks were used to investigate how partici-pants changed communicative task performance


over 12 weeks. The tasks was similar to daily class-room activities in which students were promptedby a hypothetical situation in which they were topretend that they were traveling alone in a for-eign country (see Appendix D). Test-takers weregiven the role of a customer, Role A, whereasthe researcher took on Role B in the role ofa clerk as the conversation partner. Althoughthe same tasks were used for the pretest andposttest, the participants were not told about thecontents until they saw the conversation partner.They were given 5 minutes to prepare the taskand then they engaged in a simulated conver-sation derived from the situation described onthe card. The task lasted approximately 7 min-utes. The conversation partner in the tasks didnot carry out any assessment during their conver-sation; instead, the interaction was recorded onvideotape.

Assessment Procedures

Oral Pretest and Posttest and Secondary LevelEnglish Proficiency Test . To score participants’pretest and posttest performance, the Oral Com-munication Assessment Scale for Japanese EFLStudents (see Appendix E), which was first devel-oped by an action research project at the college,was used (Nakatani, 2002, 2005). The scale con-sists of seven different levels and concentrates onlearners’ fluency, ability to interact with the in-terlocutor, and flexibility in developing dialogue.Two independent assessors, native English speak-ers, were assigned for scoring. Neither of theraters was a conversation partner in the tests. Eachof them watched the video-recorded students’ per-formance on the tests and gave assessments of thescores. The raters were not given any informationabout the candidates’ English proficiency to avoida halo effect. All results were tabulated, and theinterrater reliability was estimated by Cronbach’salpha. The result was .89, which represented ahigh degree of correlation.

To examine whether participants’ general En-glish proficiency before the training related totheir development of proficiency, all partici-pants took a Secondary Level English Proficiency(SLEP) test 1 week before the course. The SLEPtest is a well-established standardized test thatmeasures the ability to understand spoken andwritten English for secondary-level students whosenative language is not English. Scores on the SLEPcan be roughly converted to Test of English as aForeign Language (TOEFL) scores (ETS, 1991,p. 5). The test is short and convenient (45 min-utes for the listening part and 45 minutes for the

reading part), and it is suitable for determiningJapanese students’ English proficiency level (see,e.g., Kamimoto & Kawauchi, 1999). The partici-pants’ SLEP scores were relatively low (mean =73.5; TOEFL equivalent score = 350). The corre-lation between the oral pretest and the SLEP testwas .721 using the Pearson product-moment cor-relation statement of the statistical relationshipbetween the two sets of scores. This result indi-cates that the oral communication test and theSLEP test were, to some extent, measuring com-mon English proficiency skills, and this providedpartial evidence for the concurrent validity of theoral communication test.

Discourse Data Analysis for Research Question 1

To investigate what kinds of variables ondiscourse data contributed to gains in oral pro-ficiency in the conversation tests, stepwise multi-ple regression analysis was used. This analysis hasbeen widely used for strategy research to estimatehow well the dependent variable can be explainedby the independent variables (e.g., Pardon & Wax-man, 1988; Takeuchi, 1993). It is also useful foridentifying which subset from many measures isthe most effective for assessing the dependentvariable (cf. Bryman & Crammer, 1990).

All participants’ (n = 62) oral posttest scoreswere used as the dependent variable. The oralpretest scores, SLEP test scores, which were mea-sures of general English proficiency, and theposttest discourse data were used as independentvariables. The discourse data included the pro-duction rate, the number of errors, and the use ofachievement strategies and reduction strategies.The SPSS 9.0 (SPSS, 1999) statistical package wasused for analyzing the data. The explanation ofeach independent variable is given in the follow-ing texts.

Discourse Data

Videotaped interactions in the posttest weretranscribed and analyzed. Another trained ob-server reviewed the transcripts, while watching thevideotapes, with specific focus on segmentation ofthe utterances and the content of each utterance.The intercorder reliability estimate for discoursedata is approximately 95%.

Production Rates. Participants’ productionrates in their transcription data were counted bythe number of words per c-unit , which indicateshow many words the students used for an utter-ance. A c-unit is defined as an utterance such

Yasuo Nakatani 121

as a word, phrase, or sentence, that provides ref-erential or pragmatic meaning to an interaction(see Brock, 1986). C-unit analysis was useful toassess the Japanese EFL students’ performance,as their discourse consisted of many one-word ut-terances and incomplete sentences. Participants’false starts, slips, and unnecessary self-repetitionsin an effort to buy time were excluded from thenumber of words because they were not deemedto have any pragmatic meaning.

Number of Errors. Students’ errors were ana-lyzed in the transcription data by measuring thenumber of global errors and local errors (see, e.g.,Burt & Kiparsky, 1972). The former represents se-rious errors in the content of utterances causedby learners’ misunderstandings of the interlocu-tor’s intention or expressions inappropriate to thecontext. The latter includes minor errors that donot affect the conversation flow seriously, such asthe misuse of morphemes, tense, or prepositions.Examples of these errors collected from the dataare listed in the following section. Errors are indi-cated in italics.

GLOBAL ERRORS

Travel agent: When did you book? Long time ago?Customer: 7:30 start yacht tour .

LOCAL ERRORS

Travel agent: OK. Let me see . . . I’m sorry but Idon’t have a reservation in your name.

Customer: Oh, I book a tour to L.A. two monthsago. (booked)

Strategy Use

As discussed earlier, CSs are divided intoachievement and reduction strategies. The gen-eral consensus is that the former presentslearners’ active behavior in repairing and main-taining interaction; the latter reflects learners’negative behavior in avoiding solving communi-cation difficulties, which is common among low-proficiency learners. Although the participantswere encouraged to use positive CSs during thelessons (see Apendix B), they occasionally usednegative strategies when facing actual communi-cation problems in the tests. These two types ofstrategies observed in the discourse data were sub-categorized into several strategies based on previ-ous representative studies (e.g., Bialystok, 1983;Dornyei & Scott, 1997; Faerch & Kasper, 1983a;Tarone, 1980). A detailed explanation of thesestrategies and examples collected in the current

research is presented in the following to clarifyhow the data were analyzed.

Achievement Strategies. The following cate-gories were classified as achievement strate-gies: Help-seeking strategies, signals for negoti-ation, modified output, time-gaining strategies,response for maintenance strategies, and self-repairing strategies. Most of these were suggestedfor use during the lessons (see Appendix B).

Help-Seeking Strategies. There were two types ofhelp-seeking strategies: Appeal for help and askingfor repetition. The former was used when seekinginterlocutors’ assistance to solve problems causedby a lack of TL knowledge. The latter was usedwhen requesting repetition after not hearing orunderstanding what a partner said. These strate-gies are exemplified as follows:

APPEAL FOR HELP

I’m sorry. Speak slowly, please.

ASKING FOR REPETITION

Please say that again.

Signals for Negotiation. Interlocutors sent sig-nals for negotiation in an attempt to over-come communication difficulties. As discussedearlier, such strategies consisted of confirmationchecks, comprehension checks, and clarificationrequests.

CONFIRMATION CHECKS

You mean there is no bargain tour?

COMPREHENSION CHECKS

You see what I said?

CLARIFICATION REQUESTS

What does it mean?

Modified Output . When responding to part-ners’ signals for negotiation, interlocutors mod-ified their previous utterance to improve mutualunderstanding and continue the interaction. Ithas been argued that learners are given opportu-nities to produce more advanced grammatical ut-terances when trying to convey meaning in the TL(Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell, 1996;Swain, 1985). The use of modified output couldlead them to improve IL morphosyntax by ma-nipulating it in creative and complex ways. Anexample from the data follows, with the modifiedoutput in italics.

Customer: 10 o’clock start?


Travel agent: Sorry? What did you say?Customer: I thought the tour started at 9 o’clock not

10 o’clock.

Time-Gaining Strategies. As Dornyei (1995)pointed out, when learners have difficulties, theyneed to use specific strategies to gain time to thinkand to keep the communication channel open.The participants were encouraged to use thesestrategies, or “fillers,” in the OCS guide sheet(see Appendix B). The conscious use of fillerssuch as “Let me see . . .” and filled pauses such as“Umm . . .” enabled them to keep the conversationgoing instead of giving up their communication,as in the following:

Travel agent: How do you spell your name?Customer: Let me see . . . R . . . umm . . . I, S, A.

Response for Maintenance Strategies. Two typesof strategies comprised a response for mainte-nance: providing active response and shadowing .The former was characterized by making positivecomments or using other conversation gambitssuch as “I see” and “It sounds good.” The latterconsisted of exact, partial, or expanded repeti-tion of the interlocutor’s preceding utterance toshow the listener’s understanding of importantissues. Therefore, shadowing is functionally dif-ferent from other types of repetition such as falsestarts and self-repetitions.

PROVIDING ACTIVE RESPONSE

I see. It sounds good to me .

SHADOWING

Travel agent: . . . and it arrives at Los Angeles at10:00 o’clock.

Customer: Los Angeles at 10:00. I’d like to join thetour Disneyland at 10:00.

Self-Repairing Strategies. Even without receivingsignals for negotiation, participants sometimesnoticed their own problems caused by insuffi-cient linguistic resources. They used self-repairingstrategies to solve problems without the interlocu-tor’s help. These strategies were different frommodified output, which were only introducedwhen receiving a signal for negotiation. Partici-pants tried to find relevant linguistic items or ex-pressions by using paraphrase , approximation, andrestructuring . Paraphrase takes the form of exem-plification or circumlocution in describing char-acteristic properties or functions of an intendedterm. Approximation is a strategy in which learn-ers use an alternative expression that has similarsemantic features to the intended term. Restruc-

turing is used when learners realized their owndifficulty in completing a sentence and switch toanother expression to communicate the intendedmessage.

PARAPHRASE

I want to use . . . traveler’s paper money. (instead ofcheck)

APPROXIMATION

What is time for my start? (instead of departure)

RESTRUCTURING

Do you any . . . Do you have any information?

Reduction Strategies

Reduction strategies used in this study consistedof the following: Message abandonment strategies,first-language (L1)-based strategies, and IL-based re-duction strategies. As these strategies did not seemto facilitate EFL learners’ interaction, they werenot taught during the lessons. However, theyemerged in the testing phase, during which theparticipants had a lot of pressure.

Message Abandonment Strategies. When facingproblems in the TL, participants avoided engag-ing in communication and used message aban-donment strategies. When they were not able tofind appropriate forms or rules, they stopped inmidsentence and left a message unfinished. Theysometimes paused for a long time without appeal-ing to the interlocutor to help finish the utter-ance. In the most extreme cases, they kept silentwithout any response, as in the following example.

Travel agent: . . . There is no bargain tour avail-able.

Customer: [long pause]

L1-Based Strategies. First-language-based strate-gies refer to resorting to the use of the L1 (in thiscase, Japanese) for a lexical item when experienc-ing communication difficulties. The participantsoccasionally used Japanese either intentionally orunintentionally.

Travel agent: There is no bargain tour.Customer: Bargain? I . . . wakaranai . . . (I don’t

know)

IL-Based Reduction Strategies. Interlanguage-based reduction strategies occur when learnersface communication problems due to a lack oflinguistic resources associated with lower pro-ficiency. They sometimes avoid using certain

Yasuo Nakatani 123

language structures or specific topics. By cuttingout some intended elements, they occasionallyproduce inappropriate word order based on theirIL system.

Travel agent: Your flight arrives at 10 o’clock atLos Angeles.

Customer: 10 o’clock . . . I’d like to 9 o’clock.

Questionnaire Data Analysis for Research Question 2

For research question 2, the Pearson correla-tion statistic was used to investigate the relation-ships between learners’ test scores on the posttestand their frequent use of specific OCSs elicitedby the OCSI (Nakatani, 2002, 2006). After theposttest, the OCSI was used to measure the vari-ety and frequency of students’ OCS use througha structured self-report questionnaire (see Ap-pendix F). To measure the traits of students’ OCSuse through reliable and valid data, the OCSI wasdeveloped by factor analysis, using 400 JapaneseEFL students’ self-reported data. The OCSI con-sists of two different parts: Strategies for copingwith speaking problems, with 32 items, and strate-gies for coping with listening problems, with 26 items.Each part is divided into several factor dimensionsbased on the factor analysis, with the intentionthat each factor would have an adequate num-ber of items to facilitate more in-depth under-standing of OCS use. The speaking part includesthe following eight factors: Social affective , fluency-oriented , negotiation for speaking , accuracy-oriented ,message reduction and alteration, nonverbal messagefor speaking , message abandonment , and attempt tothink in English strategies. The listening part in-cludes seven factors as follows: Negotiation for lis-tening , fluency-maintaining , scanning, getting thegist , nonverbal message , less active listener , and word-oriented strategies. This instrument showed highlyacceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s al-pha was .86 for the speaking part and .85 forthe listening part). The concurrent validity ofthe OCSI was demonstrated through correlationanalysis with the Strategy Inventory for LanguageLearning (SILL), which is regarded as an estab-lished tool for diagnostic purposes to find therelative degree of an individual learner’s strat-egy use (see, e.g., Oxford, 1996; speaking part:r = 0.62, listening part: r = 0.57). The data elicitedby the OCSI can be used for statistical analyses toassess learners’ frequent use of strategies in com-municative tasks (Nakatani, 2006).

Retrospective Protocol Analysis for ResearchQuestion 3

To examine whether high- and low-proficiencystudents recognized their use of OCSs differently,

verbal report protocol data were analyzed. Thismethod has been recognized as an importanttechnique in investigating learners’ intentions forstrategy use during communicative tasks (e.g.,Clennel, 1995; Cohen, 1998; O’Malley, Chamot,Stewner-Manzares, Russo, & Kupper, 1985). Inthis study, all participants reviewed their posttesttask performance by listening to the audiotaperecorded during the conversation test. They wereinstructed to record their thoughts in Japaneseon another tape recorder while listening to theirtask performance tape. They were supposed toreport what they thought when facing communi-cation difficulties and how they used OCSs. Theseverbal reports were transcribed and used for datato understand the students’ reasons for and per-sonal reactions to their strategy use. The verba-tim transcripts were coded for the appearanceand incidence of OCSs by using the taxonomypresented in the Discourse Data Analysis session.Another teacher was asked to examine the tran-scripts independently, which led to similar results.Based on the results of the oral posttest, the high-est 10 and the lowest 10 students’ retrospectivetranscribed data were chosen to examine howdifferently higher and lower proficiency studentsrecognized OCS use. I have translated these ret-rospective data into English. Examples are shownin Tables 3 and 4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Research Question 1: Investigation of Variables ThatPredict Students’ Posttest Performance

Stepwise multiple regression analysis was usedto determine the relationship between variablescollected in students’ transcription data and theiroral proficiency in the posttest. Descriptive statis-tics for the analysis can be seen in Appendix G.Table 1 shows the final model of the stepwisemultiple regression analysis. The table includesunstandardized coefficients, standardized β coef-ficients, and t -values. β coefficients are used to as-sess the usefulness of each predictor in the model.The higher the b value, the greater the impact ofthe predictor on the dependent variable (cf. Ver-munt, 1998).

The F -ratio of the final model was 13.9 (p <

.001), which means the model was meaningfulfor analyzing the variables in the data. The R2

increment of the final model was .493, which in-dicates that the regression model accounts for al-most half of the variance in the dependent vari-able. The result of the analysis showed that fourvariables were positively related to the conversa-tion posttest scores (p < .05). They were response


TABLE 1Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for Transcription Data

Unstandardized StandardizedCoefficients Coefficients

Independent Variables B Std. Errors β t Sig.

(Constant) −0.40 0.77 −0.52 0.603Response for Maintenance 0.10 0.03 .35 3.27 0.002∗∗

Production Rate 0.79 0.33 .27 2.41 0.019∗

Signals for Negotiation 0.11 0.05 .21 2.06 0.044∗

Oral Pretest 0.21 0.11 .19 1.91 0.062

Note. B = regression coefficient; β = standardized partial regression coefficient; Sig. = observed significancelevel of the test; Std. Errors = standard errors.∗p < .05.∗∗p < .01.

for maintenance strategies, production rate, sig-nals for negotiation, and the result of the oralpretest scores.

The most significant predictor of their perfor-mance was the response for maintenance strate-gies (β = .35). Students who appropriately usedproviding active response and shadowing duringthe interaction tended to get higher scores. It can,therefore, be said that their use of strategies tokeep the conversation smooth was significantlyrelated to their oral communication ability in En-glish. By using these strategies, the students re-duced communication breakdowns, which madetheir speech more fluent. They were able to in-volve their interlocutors appropriately to developtheir interaction meaningfully.

The next significant variable was the produc-tion rate (β = .27), defined as the number ofwords per c-unit in the students’ speech. Studentswho produced longer utterances were given goodscores on the posttest. Although the mere produc-tion of long utterances does not always mean thatlearners speak better English in other contexts,high-scoring students tend to become better attaking longer turns when using English for oralcommunication.

The third significant predictor was signals fornegotiation (β = .21), which consists of con-firmation checks, comprehension checks, andclarification requests during the interaction. Thisresult supports the prediction in previous re-search that these negotiating behaviors enablelearners to gain opportunities to develop theirproductive capacity in the TL (e.g., Doughty &Pica, 1986; Pica, 2002; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Va-ronis & Gass, 1985). In particular, the currentstudy has demonstrated a clear relationship be-tween the incidence of negotiated interaction andincreases in oral communication ability. Hence,

the more frequently the students engaged innegotiation, the better score they gained. Theywere led into careful checking, clarifying, andreacting to problem utterances during their inter-action. It can be said that they made the best useof the possible benefits of interaction, which facil-itated their TL communication. Yet, one thing tonote is that although students used modified out-put when receiving signals for negotiation, as seenin Appendix G, the number of instances of mod-ified output was relatively small (M = 0.97). Thismay account for the fact that modified output wasnot a significant predictor of their performance.Therefore, the students were able negotiate witheach other to enhance mutual understanding, butthey might not have had enough opportunities todevelop TL accuracy during interaction.

The final variable that had a positive correla-tion with student achievement was the students’pretest scores. Their oral proficiency before thecourse could have affected their posttest results,yet this variable was not a significant predictor(p = .062). This can be explained by the factthat, generally, participants’ English speaking abil-ity was very low at the beginning, and someimproved significantly after the courses. There-fore, the change in other variables contributedto the posttest performance more significantlythan their original English speaking ability did.The same may be true of the result that theirgeneral proficiency assessed by the SLEP testwere not related to their TL development. Therewere still many errors in all students’ posttest dis-course, which may explain why the number of er-rors could not predict the Japanese EFL learners’posttest results.

This section focused on the students’ actualstrategy usage in the transcription data. Next,let us consider how their recognition of strategy

Yasuo Nakatani 125

usage contributed to the development of theiroral proficiency.

Research Question 2: Relationship Between ReportedFrequency of Oral Communication Strategy Useand Posttest Scores

The results of the Pearson correlation statisticshowed that there were several significant positivecorrelations between learners’ posttest scores andtheir report on the OCSI.

As shown in Table 2, among the strategiesfor coping with speaking problems, reported fre-quent use of social affective strategies positivelycorrelated to oral proficiency (p < .01). Themore students paid attention to controlling theirfeelings to reduce anxiety and to start enjoyingtheir conversation, the better the score they weregiven in the conversation test. As fluency-orientedstrategies had positive correlation with the oralposttest (p < .01), using strategies for keepingconversation flow could have a positive effect onstudents’ TL development. Although the correla-tion was not very strong (r = .275; p < .05), it canbe noted that the higher scoring students tendedto report more use of strategies for negotiation toavoid communication disruptions. These results

TABLE 2Correlations Between Posttest Rating and Communication Strategy Groups on OCSI

Strategies for Coping with Speaking Problems During Communicative Tasks

r Sig.

A: Social Affective Strategies .402 ∗∗B: Fluency-Oriented Strategies .342 ∗∗C: Negotiation for Meaning While Speaking .275 ∗D: Accuracy-Oriented Strategies .124E: Message Reduction and Alteration Strategies .165F: Nonverbal Strategies While Speaking .212G: Message Abandonment Strategies −.165H: Attempt to Think in English Strategies −.105

Strategies for Coping with Listening Problems During Communicative Tasks

r Sig.

I: Negotiation for Meaning While Listening .005J: Fluency-Maintaining Strategies .256 ∗K: Scanning Strategies .180L: Getting the Gist Strategies .125M: Nonverbal Strategies While Listening .250 ∗N: Less Active Listener Strategies −.082O: Word-Oriented Strategies .092

Note. OCSI = Oral Communication Strategy Inventory; Sig. = observed significance level of the test.∗p < .05.∗∗p < .01.

were almost consistent with the findings of theprevious section on discourse analysis. Therefore,the use of strategies for maintaining discourse andsending signals for negotiation could have a posi-tive impact on students’ oral proficiency develop-ment.

There were negative correlations between par-ticipants’ posttest scores and reported frequentuse of message abandonment strategies and at-tempt to think in English strategies, but they werenot significant. These strategies might have a neg-ative effect on the development of students’ TLconversation abilities.

With respect to strategies for coping with lis-tening problems, learners’ posttest oral profi-ciency correlated with the reported use of fluency-maintaining strategies and nonverbal strategieswhile listening (p < .05). The results indicatethat students who reacted smoothly to speakers’utterances and made use of nonverbal informa-tion to support their understanding were ableto obtain better scores on the conversation test.Notably, however, there was no correlation be-tween learners’ posttest scores and negotiation formeaning while listening strategies. Does the useof strategies for sending signals for negotiationduring reception problems have little effect on


TL oral proficiency development? It is not easyto answer this question. As shown in AppendixF, this strategy group consists not only of strate-gies for clarification requests but also of askingfor repetition, reducing speech speed, and show-ing comprehension difficulties. As Aston (1986)claimed, the use of these strategies could interferewith maintaining interaction smoothly, which maynot contribute to improving students’ conversa-tion during the task.

Research Question 3: Retrospective Protocol Analysis

The results of retrospective protocol analysisdealing with the data of 10 high and 10 lowstudents are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Asshown in Table 3, the high-proficiency studentsclearly recognized their use of response for main-

TABLE 3Retrospective Protocol of High-Proficiency Students

Student AI paid attention to communicating smoothly. I frequently signaled my understanding and reacted

appropriately. I realized that I could express myself in my own words. When I had problems, I did nothesitate to ask questions in order to make clear what my partner wanted to say.

Student BWhen I did not understand what the speaker said, I requested his help by asking “pardon?” I repeated or

changed the speaker’s previous utterance in order to check whether my understanding was correct. Iused fillers to avoid inappropriate breaks.

Student CLast time I was totally confused and I couldn’t say what I wanted. So this time, I tried to relax during the

conversation and I spoke more smoothly. I appealed for help when I had problems. Generally, I feelmuch better about speaking English. But I sometimes stopped my conversation.

Student DWhen I had communication difficulties, I used my own expressions to make sentences instead of using

sentences which I learned in lessons. Although it didn’t work perfectly, I tried to make sentences insteadof just saying a single word.

Student EI tried not to make communication gaps. I tried to modify my utterances when the listener couldn’t

understand my intention. I often checked whether I could make myself understood. I tried hard tounderstand the main points of the speaker’s utterance.

Student FI signaled that I’d understood by nodding and giving positive responses such as “Yes,” “Ah.” I often used

shadowing in order to confirm that I’ve understood.Student GI paid attention to the grammar and tried to use sentences not just words. Especially when I used

interrogative sentences, I carefully chose which WH–question to use. I used shadowing to understandwhat he said.

Student HWhen I listened to the speaker’s utterances, I paid attention to the first part of sentences. I also listened

carefully for the subject and verb of the sentence. I could use what I had practiced during lessons.Student II did not worry too much and I actually managed to enjoy our conversation. I paid attention to listening to

the WH–questions. I think I improved my speaking ability.Student JI said, “Let me see . . .” and “Well . . .” to take time to think. It seemed to work well to continue interaction.

When I responded to the speaker I used “really?” too often, which made my conversation awkward.

tenance strategies (Students A, F, and G). Theyalso used time-gaining strategies (Students B, E,and J). Thus, they paid attention to maintainingconversation flow and avoiding communicationgaps to enhance their interaction. The studentsreported using signals for negotiation and mod-ifying their utterances to improve mutual under-standing (Students A, B, and E). The use of so-cial affective strategies was also reported on theretrospective data (Students C, E, and I). This re-sult corresponds with the result of the OCSI inthe previous section. As a conversation test in En-glish was a stressful situation for Japanese learn-ers, it was easy for them to lose confidence whenfaced with a communication problem. There-fore, they needed these strategies to control af-fective factors. Some students recognized posi-tive efforts in using their own expressions and

Yasuo Nakatani 127

TABLE 4Retrospective Protocol of Low-Proficiency Students

Student KAt first, I could communicate rather smoothly because I had prepared for some questions. But when I was

asked difficult questions, I had a very hard time thinking what kind of language I should use in suchunexpected situations.

Student LI attempted to use appropriate forms again and again but I got confused and I couldn’t. I spoke disjointedly

with many pauses. I was frustrated because I couldn’t say what I wanted to say.Student MI’ve learned English for seven years but it is still very difficult for me to make myself understood in English.

In this test, there were many unexpected questions and responses from the hotel clerk. I often lost trackof what I was saying.

Student NI couldn’t speak well in the test. When I didn’t understand a word, I paid too much attention to it and I lost

my words. I got into a sort of panic.Student OWhen I had trouble understanding the speaker’s utterance, I couldn’t respond and became silent. I paused

a lot in unexpected situations, which made my conversation awkward.Student PI was not able to understand English words. In many cases I didn’t reply or respond to the speaker’s

questions. I used gestures when I had speaking problems. I feel that I have hardly made myselfunderstood.

Student QI became very nervous. I’ve not had enough chances to speak in English for such a long time. I was totally at

a loss as to what I should say during the conversation.Student RWhen I didn’t know what to do, I gave up easily and kept silent. I couldn’t catch what the speaker said

because he spoke too fast and so I couldn’t respond. I just waited until the speaker gave me some help.Student SI took too much time to think how to make English sentences. I feel strongly that I lack knowledge of

English vocabulary and grammar.Student TI was very confused during the test. I could not find appropriate words and sentences, especially when I had

trouble with reservations and arrangements.

sentences (Students A, D, and G). They seemed tobe motivated to make conversation in English. Ingeneral, high-proficiency students tended to re-port positive strategies. Some students, however,noticed their communication deficiencies (Stu-dents C and J). By reflecting on their own per-formance, learners were able to diagnose theirweaknesses.

With regard to low-proficiency students, theyshowed awareness of their shortcomings in the re-ports. By looking at these protocols in Table 4, wecan understand more clearly why the conversationtask was difficult for the students and how they re-acted in such a situation. Judging from the data,we can infer that the students experienced twokinds of difficulties: Affective and cognitive . Affec-tive difficulties are caused by the lack of experiencein using English in authentic contexts or conversa-tion test contexts. Japanese learners rarely use En-glish to make real decisions about what they wishto achieve or adjust their language according to

those decisions. They also have little experienceon conversation tests. For the low-level learners, a12-week course of communicative lessons was notlong enough to improve their affective factors.Consequently, they felt under pressure to producethe TL accurately but could not always find waysto respond to unpredictable situations (StudentsL, M, N, and Q). Cognitive difficulties are causedby a lack of linguistic, sociolinguitic, or strategicknowledge. Learners had problems finding thevocabulary and grammar they needed to produceappropriate expressions and to understand theinput properly (Students S and T). They did notknow how to predict or manage their commu-nication problems (Students K, M, and P). Thisclassification has useful pedagogical implications:Instead of forcing learners to practice conversa-tion randomly, we should introduce tasks that aimat improving known communication problems.

In sum, low-proficiency students lacked suf-ficient strategic knowledge to maintain their


interaction or linguistic knowledge for sponta-neous communication. The results here indicatethat it is important to organize specific trainingfor low-proficiency students who were unable todevelop OCS use within the current teaching pro-gram. They should be enrolled in a small groupprogram in which they can take their time tolearn the TL gradually. They need special careand should be provided with opportunities forsuccess to improve their confidence and the useof OCSs.

We see that the success of the students couldbe attributed in part to their conscious participa-tion in communicative achievements. The high-proficiency students noticed the usefulness ofstrategies for maintaining conversation flow. Theyseem to have raised their awareness of using OCSssuch as negotiation of meaning to solve potentialcommunication problems.

CONCLUSIONS

As there was no control group, the findings ofthis study should be taken as suggestive ratherthan definitive. The results of the multiple dataanalyses dealing with the transcription data, OCSIdata, and retrospective protocol data were mutu-ally supportive in general. The stepwise multipleregression analysis for discourse data showed thatthe use of response for maintenance and signalsfor negotiation strategies were significantly re-lated to the oral test scores. High-proficiency stu-dents showed clear awareness of using strategiesto fill communication gaps and negotiate mean-ing to enhance mutual understanding both onthe questionnaire and in their retrospective pro-tocols. Thus, the frequent use of specific OCSs,such as making efforts for maintaining conver-sation flow and negotiation of meaning, couldcontribute to the oral proficiency developmentof EFL learners with sufficient proficiency. It canbe assumed that the integrated OCS approach,which includes strategies for negotiation as well ascommunication enhancers, is beneficial for EFLtraining.

However, there is still room for argument con-cerning how strategies for negotiation lead toTL development. For example, this study didnot fully answer the questions raised by Porter(1986): Negotiation over grammatical morphol-ogy is rare, which may not offer learners opportu-nities to develop TL forms. In this study, the stu-dents used modified output when they receivedsignals for negotiation from the interlocutor. Yet,it is still unclear whether such behaviors could de-velop learners’ TL accuracy. Although negotiation

devices help learners obtain opportunities tomodify their previous utterances, they may not benecessarily indicative of the development of theiraccuracy. Overall, it can be safely said that negotia-tion strategies provide learners with opportunitiesto attend to TL form and to relationships betweenthe form and meaning, after having noticed theusefulness of these strategies.

As this type of strategy research is still in itsinitial stage, further in-depth investigations areneeded to mitigate the limitations of the currentresearch. Twelve weeks of OCS training seemed todevelop some learners’ motivation to talk in En-glish. However, merely offering ample opportuni-ties to use the TL is not enough to control anxietyfor other students, especially when they face unex-pected difficulties. Therefore, it is essential to de-velop strategy training specific for low-proficiencystudents. As this study did not investigate how astudent’s learning style affects his or her classroombehavior, it is a debatable point whether the stu-dent’s learning style will fit the strategy trainingfor gaining specific interaction skills.

Moreover, future studies should be carried outacross different types of groups. The studentsin the study were college-level female JapaneseEFL learners. It could be argued that becausethe research context was homogeneous in nature,the results of the current research can only begeneralized to populations that share similar char-acteristics. It is meaningful to examine relation-ships between the strategy use of male groups orgender-mixed groups and their conversation testperformance. As the current research did not con-duct a delayed posttest, future studies should ex-amine the longitudinal effects of OCS training onstudents’ oral proficiency.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank The Modern Language Journalreviewers and editor for their insightful comments anduseful suggestions. I am solely responsible for any re-maining errors and omissions.

REFERENCES

Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction withlearners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguis-tics, 7, 128–143.

Bejarano, Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997).The skill use of interaction strategies: Creating aframework for improved small-group communica-tion interaction in the language classroom. System,25, 203–213.

Yasuo Nakatani 129

Bialystok, E. (1983). Inferencing: Testing the“hypothesis-testing” hypothesis. In H. W. Seliger& M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research insecond language acquisition (pp. 104–123). Rowley,MA: Newbury House.

Brock, C. (1986). The effect of referential questions onESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 47–59.

Bryman, A., & Crammer, D. (1990). Quantitative dataanalysis for social scientists. London: Routledge.

Burt, M. K., & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The gooficon: A repairmanual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of languageproficiency. In J. W. Oller, Jr. (Ed.), Issues in lan-guage testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases ofcommunicative approaches to second languageteaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.

Chen, S.-Q. (1990). A study of communication strate-gies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFLlearners. Language Learning, 40, 155–187.

Clennel, C. (1995). Communication strategies of adultESL learners: A discourse perspective. Prospect, 10,4–20.

Cohen, A. D. (1998) Strategies in learning and using asecond language . Essex, UK: Longman.

Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & Li, T.-Y. (1998). The im-pact of strategies-based instruction on speaking aforeign language. In A. D. Cohen (Ed.), Strategiesin learning and using a second language (pp. 107–156). Essex, UK: Longman.

Dadour, S., & Robbins, J. (1996). University-level stud-ies using strategy instruction to improve speakingability in Egypt and Japan. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.),Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspective (pp. 157–166). Honolulu, HI:Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communica-tion strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55–85.

Dornyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communica-tion strategies in a second language: Definitionsand taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173–210.

Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks:Do they facilitate second language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–325.

ETS (Educational Testing Service). (1991). SLEP testmanual (5th ed.). Princeton, NJ: Educational Test-ing Service.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983a). On identifying com-munication strategies in interlanguage produc-tion. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies ininterlanguage communication (pp. 210–238). Lon-don: Longman.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983b). Plans and strategiesin foreign language communication. In C. Faerch& G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage com-munication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of definingcommunication strategies. Language Learning, 34,45–63.

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the nego-tiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–26.

Huang, X.-H., & Naerssen, M. (1987). Learning strate-gies for oral communication. Applied Linguistics,8, 287–307.

Kamimoto, T., & Kawauchi, C. (1999). The effect ofrepetition on EFL oral fluency: A quantitative ap-proach. Kumamotogakuen Daigaku Bungaku GengoRonbunshu, 7, 1–24.

Kellerman, E., & Bialystok, E. (1997). On psychologicalplausibility in the study of communication strate-gies. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Commu-nication strategies (pp. 304–322). Essex, UK: Long-man.

Labarca, A., & Khanji, R. (1986). On communicationstrategies: Focus on interaction. Studies in Secondlanguage Acquisition, 8, 68–79.

Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relation-ship between cognitive style and the use of com-municative strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22, 241–265.

Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistics and conversational ad-justments to non-native speakers. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 5, 177–194.

Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Nego-tiation of meaning in conversation and informa-tion gap activities: A comparative discourse analy-sis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377–405.

Nakatani, Y. (2002). Improving oral proficiency throughstrategy training . Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion. The University of Birmingham, UK.

Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raisingtraining on oral communication strategy use. Mod-ern Language Journal, 89, 76–91.

Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an Oral Communica-tion Strategy Inventory. Modern Language Journal,90, 151–168.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learningstrategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzares, G.,Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strate-gies applications with students of English as a sec-ond language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557–584.

Oxford, R. L. (1996). Afterword: What have we learnedabout language learning strategies around theworld? In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learningstrategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspective .Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Cur-riculum Center.

Pardon, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1988). The effects ofEFL students’ perceptions of their cognitive strate-gies on reading achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 22,146–150.

Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it as-sist the interactional and linguistic needs of class-room language learners? Modern Language Jour-nal, 86, 1–19.

Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction inthe communicative language classroom: A com-parison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In


S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second lan-guage acquisition (pp. 115–132). Rowley, MA: New-bury House.

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J.(1996). Language learners’ interaction: How doesit address the input, output, and feedback needsof L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.

Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Inputand interaction in task-centered discussion. In R.Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in secondlanguage acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Poulisse, N. (1987). Problems and solutions in the clas-sification of compensatory strategies. Second Lan-guage Research, 3, 141–153.

Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1987). Theuse of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis ofcompensatory strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper(Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp.100–112). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Rost, M., & Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies ininteraction: Typology and teachability. LanguageLeaning, 41, 235–273.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” canteach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learn-ing . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SPSS. (1999). SPSS Base 9.0 applications guide . Chicago:SPSS.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Someroles of comprehensible input and comprehensi-

ble output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C.Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisi-tion (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Takeuchi, O. (1993). Language learning strategies andtheir relationship to achievement in English as aforeign language. Language Laboratory, 30, 17–34.

Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreignertalk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learn-ing, 30, 417–431.

Tarone, E., Cohen, A., & Dumas, G. (1976). A closerlook at some interlanguage terminology. WorkingPapers in Bilingualism, 9, 76–90.

Varonis, E., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-nativeconversations: A model for negotiation of mean-ing. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.

Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructivelearning processes. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 68, 149–171.

Williams, J., Inscoe, R., & Tasker, T. (1997). Communica-tion strategies in an interactional context: The mu-tual achievement of comprehension. In G. Kasper& E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies(pp. 304–322). Essex, UK: Longman.

Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1991). The other side of the page:Integrating the study of communication strategiesand negotiated input in SLA. In R. Phillipson, E.Kellerman, M. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, &M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogyresearch (pp. 176–196). Clevendon, UK: Multilin-gual Matters.

APPENDIX ACourse Syllabus

Week 1. Introduction of the courseTopic: Objectives of the courseDelivering OCS sheet and explaining how to use CSs for communicative tasks.

Week 2. Pre-speaking testTopic: Booking a tour at a travel agencyFunctions: Asking for travel informationVocabulary: Classes of travelGrammar: What would you recommend? I prefer to. . .

Week 3. GreetingTopic: Self-introductionsFunctions: Asking for and giving informationVocabulary: Openers, closersGrammar: Where..? How..?

Week 4. Breaking the iceTopic: Likes and dislikesFunctions: Asking people’s preferencesVocabulary: Hobbies, types of music, moviesGrammar: What kind of..?

Week 5. Making dates with friendsTopic: Appointments and datesFunctions: Making appointmentsVocabulary: Places, dates, timesGrammar: Future tense/How about..?

Yasuo Nakatani 131

Week 6. Restaurant conversationTopic: Ordering at restaurantsFunctions: Taking orders for foodVocabulary: Menus, billsGrammar: What is..? It’s a kind of. . . How would you like to..?

Week 7. Hotel stayTopic: Using hotel services and facilitiesFunctions: Asking for help in a hotelVocabulary: Hotel facilitiesGrammar: There’s a problem with. . . Where can I get. . .?

Week 8. Let’s shop at a department storeTopic: ShoppingFunctions: Inquiring about where to buy and what to buyVocabulary: DirectionsGrammar: There’s a problem with. . . Where can I get. . .?

Week 9. Flight reservationTopic: Making flight reservationsFunctions: Inquiring about flight schedulesVocabulary: Flight information, schedulesGrammar: Would you confirm..? Which airlines..?

Week 10. At the airportTopic: Airport check-inFunctions: Checking in, dealing with travel documentsVocabulary: Luggage, regulationsGrammar: What is the flight number..? Could you make..?

Week 11. ReviewSelf evaluationAnswering the questionnaires

Week 12. Post-speaking testTopic: Booking a tour at a travel agency

APPENDIX BOral Communication Strategy Guide Sheet

1. Appeal for helpI don’t understand./I don’t follow you.What does . . . mean?

2. Asking for repetitionSorry?/Pardon?Can you say that again, please?

3. Comprehension checksDo you understand?/Do you know what I mean?Is it OK?

4. Confirmation checksYou mean. . .

Is that . . . ?

5. Clarification requestsWhat did you say?/What do you mean?Could you explain that again?

6. Using fillersWell . . ./Let me see . . ./Um . . ./Mm . . ./Uh . . .

How can I say?


7. Response for maintenanceRight./I see.Is that right?/Oh yeah? Oh really?That’ s great/good.

8. Self-repairingWhen having difficulties in finding relevant expressions, use similar words, circumlocutions or give examples.It is a kind of . . ./For example . . .

APPENDIX CTeaching Procedures

1. Review (10 minutes). Learners conduct the previous task with a different partner from the last lesson.They can have chances to review their previous performance and make use of feedback for oralcommunication strategies which they used in the last lesson. By practicing interaction in the first task,learners are also given time to warm up for the new task.

2. Presentation (10 minutes). The instructor presents a new task topic and explains the goal and proce-dures. The instructor chooses some OCSs and suggests to learners that they use strategies explicitly.Learners also discuss requested linguistic resources for the task through brainstorming sessions.

3. Rehearsal (10 minutes). Students are divided into two groups and each group is given a different rolecard which deals with the simulated communicative context. They prepare agendas to fulfill the rolesassigned to them. They practice their roles with pairs in the same group.

4. Performance (50 minutes). Each learner from different role groups makes a pair and operates thetask. After finishing the simulation task with the first pair, they change the partner and carry it outagain with the next partner.

5. Evaluation (10 minutes). After active practice with the task, learners check and reflect on their ownlearning. They review their strategy use.

APPENDIX DOral Communication Task for Pretest and Posttest

Role A: You are visiting a travel agency in San Francisco. One month ago you booked a cheap tour to LosAngeles for three days starting tomorrow. This tour was advertised in a newspaper ad at $150. Youhave come here to get the travel voucher. Please use a traveler’s check for payment and ask aboutthe flight schedule for tomorrow. You intend to go on the Disneyland tour, which your guidebookstates will start in L.A. at 9:00 a.m. You are on a tight budget.

Role B: You are working at a travel agency. You are a new employee and do not know how to access thecustomers’ data, which the clerk before you used. You can only accept cash or a credit card. Allbargain 3-day tours starting tomorrow are booked. The following tours are available:Bargain tour for 4 days: $200, the flight leaves at 10 a.m. and arrives at 11 a.m.Standard tour for 3 days: $220, the flight leaves at 10 a.m. and arrives at 11 a.m.

Yasuo Nakatani 133

APPENDIX EOral Communication Assessment Scale for Japanese EFL Students

Level 7 Almost always communicates effectively in the taskSpeech is generally natural and continuous.Can interact in a real-life way with the interlocutor.Can generally develop the dialogue spontaneously with few errors.

Level 6 Generally communicates effectively in the taskIs not quite fluent but interacts effectively.Can generally react flexibly.Makes a positive contribution to the dialogue.

Level 5 Communicates reasonably effectively in the taskIs sometimes fluent but with hesitancies.Can interact fairly comfortably and gain flexibility.Makes some contribution to the dialogue.

Level 4 Communicates moderately effectively in the taskMakes some pauses but fairly intelligible.Shows some flexibility.Is somewhat independent of the interlocutor in the dialogue.

Level 3 Communicates modestly in the taskMakes frequent pauses but somewhat intelligible.Shows little flexibility.Can maintain dialogue but in a rather passive way.

Level 2 Communicates marginally in the taskMakes numerous pauses, at times long ones.Still depends on the interlocutor but begins to interact a little with him/her.Given help, communicates quite basically. Requires some tolerance from the interlocutor.

Level 1 Communicates extremely restrictedly in the taskCan answer simple questions but with numerous long pauses.Depends on interlocutor with only partial contribution to dialogue.Some questions have to be repeated or rephrased.

APPENDIX FOral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI; Nakatani, 2002, 2006)

Please read the following items, choose a response and write it in the space after each item.1. Never or almost never true of me; 2. Generally not true of me; 3. Somewhat true of me;4. Generally true of me 5. Always or almost always true of me.

PART 1 Strategies for coping with speaking problems during communicative tasks

No. Items Point SUM Average

1 I try to relax when I feel anxious.

2 I try to enjoy the conversation.

A 3 I try to give a good impression to the listener.

4 I actively encourage myself to express what I want to say.

5 I don’t mind taking risks even though I might make mistakes.

6 I try to use fillers when I cannot think of what to say. ( ) ( )

(Continued)



7 I pay attention to my rhythm and intonation.

8 I pay attention to my pronunciation.

B 9 I pay attention to the conversation flow.

10 I change my way of saying things according to the context inorder to continue conversations.

11 I take my time to express what I want to say.

12 I try to speak clearly and loudly to make myself heard. ( ) ( )

13 I make comprehension checks to ensure the listenerunderstands what I want to say.

C 14 I repeat what I want to say until the listener understands.

15 While speaking, I pay attention to the listener’s reaction to myspeech.

16 I give examples if the listener doesn’t understand what I am saying. ( ) ( )

17 I pay attention to grammar and word order during conversation.

18 I notice myself using an expression which fits a rule that I havelearned.

D 19 I correct myself when I notice that I have made a mistake.

20 I try to emphasize the subject and verb of the sentence.

21 I try to talk like a native speaker. ( ) ( )

22 I reduce the message and use simple expressions.

E 23 I use words which are familiar to me.

24 I replace the original message with another message because offeeling incapable of executing my original intent. ( ) ( )

F 25 I try to make eye contact when I am talking.

26 I use gestures and facial expressions if I can’t communicate whatI want to say. ( ) ( )

27 I leave a message unfinished because of some language difficulty.

28 I ask other people to help when I can’t communicate well.

G 29 I give up when I can’t make myself understood.

30 I abandon the execution of a verbal plan and just say some wordswhen I don’t know how to express myself. ( ) ( )

31 I think first of a sentence I already know in English and then tryto change it to fit the situation.

H 32 I try to think of what I want to say not in my native language butEnglish. ( ) ( )

PART 2 Strategies for coping with listening problems during communicative tasks


1 I ask for repetition when I can’t understand what the speaker hassaid.

2 I make a clarification request when I am not sure what thespeaker has said.

I

(Continued)

Yasuo Nakatani 135


3 I ask the speaker to use easy words when I have difficulties incomprehension.

4 I ask the speaker to slow down when I can’t understand what thespeaker has said.

5 I make clear to the speaker what I haven’t been able to understand. ( ) ( )

6 I pay attention to the speaker’s rhythm and intonation.

7 I send continuation signals to show my understanding in orderto avoid conversation gaps.

J 8 I use circumlocution to react to the speaker’s utterance when Idon’t understand his/her intention well.

9 I ask the speaker to give an example when I am not sure whathe/she has said.

10 I pay attention to the speaker’s pronunciation. ( ) ( )

11 I pay attention to the subject and verb of the sentence when Ilisten.

K 12 I especially pay attention to the interrogative when I listen to WH–questions.

13 I pay attention to the first part of the sentence and guess thespeaker’s intention.

14 I try to catch the speaker’s main point. ( ) ( )

15 I don’t mind if I can’t understand every single detail.

L 16 I anticipate what the speaker is going to say based on the context.

17 I guess the speaker’s intention based on what he/she has said sofar.

18 I try to respond to the speaker even when I don’t understandhim/her perfectly. ( ) ( )

M 19 I use gestures when I have difficulties in understanding.

20 I pay attention to the speaker’s eye-contact, facial expression andgestures. ( ) ( )

N 21 I try to translate into native language little by little to understandwhat the speaker has said.

22 I only focus on familiar expressions. ( ) ( )

23 I pay attention to the words which the speaker slows down oremphasizes.

O 24 I guess the speaker’s intention by picking up familiar words.

25 I try to catch every word that the speaker uses.

26 I pay attention to the first word to judge whether it is aninterrogative sentence or not. ( ) ( )

A: social affective strategies, B: fluency-oriented strategies, C: negotiation for meaning while speaking,D: accuracy-oriented strategies, E: message reduction and alteration strategies,F: nonverbal strategies while speaking, G: message abandonment strategies,H: attempt to think in English strategies, I: negotiation for meaning while listening,J: fluency-maintaining strategies, K: scanning strategies, L: getting the gist strategies,M: nonverbal strategies while listening, N: less active listener strategies, O: word-oriented strategies


APPENDIX GDescriptive Statistics from Multiple Regression Analysis (N = 62)

1. Oral Communication Test Average SD

Pretest 2.4 1.3Posttest 2.68 1.45

2. SLEP Test Results Average SD

Listening 40.7 7.69Reading 34.5 5.37

3. Production Rate

C-unit total 154C-unit average 2.48

4. Number of Errors Total Average

Global errors 66 1.06Local errors 282 4.55

Total errors 348 5.61

5. Strategies on Discourse Data Total Average

a. Help-seeking strategies 52 0.84b. Signals for negotiation 195 3.15c. Modified output 60 0.97d. Time-gaining strategies 77 1.24e. Response for maintenance 361 5.82f. Self-repairing strategy 79 1.27

Achievement strategies total 823 13.27

g. Message abandonment 962 15.52h. L1-based 87 1.40i. IL-based reduction 254 4.10

Reduction strategies total 1303 21.0

Documents

Identifying Strategies that facilitate EFL learners' oral communication , a classroom study using mu