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

Identifying Strategies That Facilitate EFL Learners’ Oral Communication: A Classroom Study Using Multiple Data Collection Procedures YASUO NAKATANI Tokyo University of Science School of Management 500 Shimokiyoku, Kuki-shi Saitama-ken 346-8512 Japan Email: ynakatanister@gmail.com This article considers whether the use of specific communication strategies can improve learners’ English proficiency in communicative tasks. Japanese college students (n = 62) participated in 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 conversation test was analyzed through multiple data collection procedures. Transcripts of the test were made and then analyzed in terms of production rate, the number of errors, and actual strategy use. An Oral Communication Strategy Inventory was introduced to elicit participants’ communication strategy use for a self-report questionnaire procedure. These results were compared with participants’ retrospective protocol data regarding their oral test performance. The findings confirmed that strategies for maintaining discourse and negotiation of meaning could enhance learners’ communicative ability. Yet the students used a relatively small number of examples of modified output, which indicated that they might not have enough opportunities to improve the form of their utterances.

NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE by researchers to show the effects of learning strategies on target language (TL) development (e.g., Cohen, Weaver, & Li, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1996; Rubin, 1975). Learning strategies are the conscious thoughts and behaviors used by learners to help them better understand, learn, and remember the TL information. Researchers also recognize that learners can improve their communicative ability by developing learning strategies that enable them to become independent learners of the TL (Dadour & Robbins, 1996; Labarca & Khanji, 1986), reflecting the widely held belief that strategies for comThe Modern Language Journal, 94, i, (2010) 0026-7902/10/116–136 $1.50/0 C 2010 The Modern Language Journal

munication relate to successful language performance (e.g., D¨ornyei, 1995; Huang & Naerssen, 1987; Rost & Ross, 1991). The main reason is that the use of communication strategy (CS) can solve communicative disruptions and enhance interaction in the TL (D¨ornyei & Scott, 1997; Faerch & Kasper, 1983a; Tarone, 1980). In particular, the role of specific strategies such as negotiation of meaning has been an important object of study for a long time (e.g., Long, 1983; Pica, 2002; Varonis & Gass, 1985). However, most of these studies were conducted in experimental settings and only a few studies have explored second language (L2) learners’ actual CS use in classroom contexts (Foster, 1998; Williams, Inscoe, & Tasker, 1997). We should not overlook Foster’s (1998) claim that there is little research that has demonstrated a direct relationship

117

Yasuo Nakatani between the incidence of strategies for negotiation and an increase in language proficiency in classroom contexts. Additionally, the majority of negotiation research has not included other types of CSs, such as using fillers or shadowing as communication enhancers for maintaining and developing TL discourse. As Williams et al. (1997) argued, learners also need to use such strategies to develop their interaction in actual communicative contexts; thus, it is worthwhile to examine the effect of such strategy use. Another problematic issue is that the research in interlanguage (IL) negotiation has analyzed learners’ interaction by a single method— transcription data analysis—which makes it difficult to interpret learners’ actual intention of specific strategy use. Researchers claim that the nature of the available data on strategies depends on the collection method, and there seems to be no fully established set of assessment procedures yet (Cohen, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Therefore, to compensate for problems inherent in the single method, it is essential to introduce multiple data collection procedures to obtain more accurate and valid data on learners’ cognitive process and strategy use. By combining several assessment methods, this study addresses the question of whether the use of CSs that include not only negotiation of meaning but also communication enhancers can develop English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ oral proficiency in classroom settings. Sixty-two Japanese college students participated in a 12-week course of English lessons based on a communicative approach with explicit strategy training. They had a conversation test before and after the training. I transcribed the posttraining test to analyze whether participants’ actual strategy use, production rates, and the number of errors have an effect on students’ TL development. As a reliable questionnaire method, this study used the Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI), which was developed by using factor analysis based on a survey of 400 Japanese students (Nakatani, 2006). Additionally, the participants reviewed their task performance by listening to the audiotape recorded during the conversation test and provided a retrospective think-aloud protocol. I also transcribed these data and examined participants’ awareness of specific strategy usage. Although this triangulated approach revealed a slight difference among the results of respective analyses, I suggest that the use of specific CSs for interaction could improve EFL learners’ oral proficiency.

BACKGROUND Definition of Communication Strategies Tarone, Cohen, and Dumas (1976) were the first to recognize learners’ problem-solving behavior during TL communication as “communication strategy.” They discussed that learners tend to use CSs to compensate for their lack of appropriate TL knowledge when expressing or decoding the meaning of their intended utterances. Tarone (1980) regarded CSs as the “mutual attempts of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in a situation where the requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared” (p. 420). She emphasized interactional aspects of CSs that contain any attempts to avoid communication disruptions. Much attention has been paid to CSs since Canale and Swain (1980) presented their influential model of communicative competence. As one of the subcompetencies in the model, they defined CSs as strategic competence involving the ability to use verbal and nonverbal strategies to avoid communication breakdowns that might be caused by learners’ lack of appropriate knowledge of the TL. They noted that low-level students could benefit from learning effective CSs such as paraphrasing, using gestures, and asking questions for clarification. Canale (1983) extended the concept of CSs to include not only strategies to compensate for disruptions in communication problems due to speakers’ insufficient TL knowledge but also strategies to enhance the effectiveness of communication with interlocutors. A broader definition of CSs was proposed by Faerch and Kasper (1983a, 1983b, 1984), who emphasized the planning and execution of speech production. They claimed that to solve communication problems, a learner does not only cooperate with his or her interlocutor but also finds a solution himself or herself without cooperative assistance. This view led to further research concentrating 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 and categorized CSs into two types: Achievement strategies and reduction strategies. The former enables learners to work on an alternative plan for reaching the original goal by means of whatever resources are available. The latter lets learners avoid solving a communication problem and allows them to give up on conveying the original message. Achievement strategies, in turn, consist of

118 compensatory strategies and retrieval strategies. The former include codeswitching , interlingual transfer , intralingual transfer , IL–based strategies, cooperative strategies, and nonlinguistic strategies. The latter are used when learners have difficulties in retrieving specific IL items. Reduction strategies consists of formal reduction strategies—using a reduced system to avoid producing nonfluent or incorrect utterances—and function reduction strategies—avoiding a specific topic or giving up on sending a message. In short, CSs can be regarded as any attempts by learners to overcome their difficulties and generate the TL to achieve communicative goals in actual interaction. In particular, learners need these strategies to use in the TL when they do not share linguistic, discoursal, and sociolinguistic information with their interlocutors. By utilizing these strategies, they can recognize their own deficiencies and employ specific strategies to negotiate meaning and produce the TL. These behaviors offer learners sufficient opportunities to learn how to solve communication problems while maintaining conversation flow. When learners face difficult information, by using CSs they can experience the process of comprehending information input and thus have a chance to facilitate their own TL acquisition. These strategies allow learners to remain in the conversation, which provides them with opportunities to hear more TL input and produce new utterances. Consequently, the use of CSs can have a significant learning effect for EFL learners. Therefore, CSs should be regarded as a subset of learning strategies, which contain both skills for learning a language and applications of them in real communicative contexts. However, as D¨ornyei and Scott (1997) pointed out, researchers have used several competing taxonomies of CSs. In particular, two representative definition groups have evolved. The interactional view (e.g., Rost & Ross, 1991; Tarone, 1980; Williams et al., 1997) focuses on the interaction between interlocutors and negotiation of meaning. In this view, CSs are regarded as comprising not only problem-solving phenomena to compensate for communication disruptions but also a pragmatic discourse function as message enhancers. The psycholinguistic view (e.g., Faerch & Kasper, 1983a; Kellerman & Bialystok, 1997; Littlemore, 2001; Poulisse et al., 1987) focuses on the range of problem-solving activities open to the individual. Researchers of a psycholinguistic orientation concentrate on lexical compensatory strategies and exclude other areas of strategy use. The position adopted here is close to that of the interactional view, which investigates EFL

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) learners’ strategy use during interaction with their communication partners in classroom tasks. The focus is on the examination of the claim that CSs can be used by learners with limited knowledge of the TL to maximize their potential for interpersonal communication (e.g., Bejarano, Levine, Olshtain, & Steiner, 1997; Clennel, 1995; D¨ornyei, 1995). To avoid confusion, the term oral communication strategy (OCS) is used instead of communication strategy. OCSs highlight interlocutors’ negotiation behavior for coping with communication breakdowns and their use of communication enhancers. Strategies for Negotiation of Meaning and Communication Enhancers A considerable number of studies have been conducted on the learning effects of interlocutors’ mutual attempts to avoid and repair impasses in the TL (e.g., Doughty & Pica, 1986; Pica, 2002; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Varonis & Gass, 1985). Such strategic behavior for solving interaction problems is defined as negotiation of meaning (Varonis & Gass, 1985). An interlocutor’s signals for negotiation of meaning can be divided into comprehension checks, confirmation checks, and clarification requests (Long, 1983). Comprehension checks are when interlocutors try to acknowledge whether others have understood the preceding utterances. Confirmation checks occur when interlocutors attempt to ensure their own understanding of others’ preceding utterances, which can be realized by repeating or paraphrasing what the previous speaker said. Clarification requests are when interlocutors seek assistance in understanding others’ preceding utterances. Through employing such strategies for negotiation, learners can receive comprehensible input and have opportunities for modifying their output. In other words, learners can comprehend and produce messages beyond their current IL receptive and expressive capacities through negotiation of meaning. Some researchers, however, have argued that the evidence collected in support of the benefits of meaning negotiation is not plentiful or entirely convincing (e.g., Foster, 1998; Porter, 1986; Skehan, 1998). In particular, there is little research supporting a direct link between negotiation behaviors and TL acquisition. Furthermore, previous negotiation research has not included other types of CSs (see, e.g., Yule & Tarone, 1991). In actual communication, interlocutors have to use many strategies, such as maintaining discourse and buying time to think. In line with Canale’s (1983) definition, it is reasonable to consider that

119

Yasuo Nakatani CSs consist of any attempts to solve communication problems and enhance communication with interlocutors. Therefore, it is appropriate to analyze learners’ discourse data by focusing on not only negotiation devices but also other strategies for maintaining and developing interaction. To extrapolate pedagogical implications, investigating the effect of various CSs on learners’ performance in classroom contexts is essential. Yet, to date, there are few studies that utilize this expanding view of CSs (e.g., Nakahama, Tyler, & van Lier, 2001; Williams et al., 1997). Moreover, these studies dealt with a small number of participants and used a single data collecting method based on transcription analysis. Furthermore, some researchers (e.g., Chen, 1990; Huang & Naerssen, 1987; Rost & Ross, 1991) argued that the type and frequency of strategy use for communication varies according to learners’ oral proficiency level, and low-proficiency students could have difficulties in choosing appropriate strategies and recognizing the effects of using strategies. Thus, it is important to examine whether the use of OCSs is equivalent across high- and low-proficiency students. The current research attempts to provide several insights into whether the use of a specific strategy for interaction impacts on EFL performance with multiple data analyses. METHODS Research Questions Japanese college students enrolled in 12-week EFL courses participated in this experiment. This study investigated which strategy use contributed to the development of oral proficiency in classroom contexts. For this purpose, the following three research questions were addressed: 1. What kinds of variables in learners’ discourse contribute to oral proficiency development? 2. What is the relationship between the frequency of oral communication strategy use and posttest scores? 3. Are the retrospective verbal report protocols regarding oral communication strategy use equivalent across high- and low-proficiency students? Participants The participants were 62 female students enrolled in mixed-level EFL classes at a private college in Japan. Each student had completed 6 years of 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 examinations. Their English proficiency, especially listening comprehension, was quite low, with scores ranging from 200 to 530 on the Test of English for International Communication administered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). Teaching Procedures The students have one 90-minute English lesson per week with a Japanese instructor for a total of 24 class meetings a year. The current study was conducted at the end of the first term, when they had completed the initial 12 weeks of an EFL course based on a communicative approach. The syllabus outline for the strategy-based conversation course can be seen in Appendix A. To enhance students’ strategy use for communication, an OCS guide sheet (Appendix B) was provided to them during the introduction lesson in Week 1 of the second term. The sheet consists of examples of each strategy of which students could make use in each lesson. The strategy training consisted of a five-phase instructional sequence: Review, presentation, rehearsal, performance, and evaluation (see Appendix C). In the review phase, the students reflected on the previous lesson and repeated the simulation task at the beginning of each new lesson, which enabled them to warm up for a new task. In the presentation stage, according to the instructor’s guidelines, the students recognized the goals and procedures of the new task and discussed, through brainstorming sessions, basic dialogues that they were asked to create and the possible OCSs for doing so. During the next stage, the students rehearsed once with their peers and made plans for using specific OCSs. Students could locate whatever strategies from the lists they thought would be useful for interaction in the tasks. When they then performed the tasks, they monitored their own performance. They were encouraged to use OCSs intentionally during the task. During the evaluation stage, the students checked and reflected on their own learning. They reviewed strategy use. Accordingly, they were encouraged to use OCSs consciously during preparation, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation for their task performance. Data Collection Procedures Conversation Test. Pretest and posttest conversation tasks were used to investigate how participants changed communicative task performance

120 over 12 weeks. The tasks was similar to daily classroom activities in which students were prompted by a hypothetical situation in which they were to pretend that they were traveling alone in a foreign country (see Appendix D). Test-takers were given the role of a customer, Role A, whereas the researcher took on Role B in the role of a clerk as the conversation partner. Although the same tasks were used for the pretest and posttest, the participants were not told about the contents until they saw the conversation partner. They were given 5 minutes to prepare the task and then they engaged in a simulated conversation derived from the situation described on the card. The task lasted approximately 7 minutes. The conversation partner in the tasks did not carry out any assessment during their conversation; instead, the interaction was recorded on videotape. Assessment Procedures Oral Pretest and Posttest and Secondary Level English Proficiency Test. To score participants’ pretest and posttest performance, the Oral Communication Assessment Scale for Japanese EFL Students (see Appendix E), which was first developed by an action research project at the college, was used (Nakatani, 2002, 2005). The scale consists of seven different levels and concentrates on learners’ fluency, ability to interact with the interlocutor, and flexibility in developing dialogue. Two independent assessors, native English speakers, were assigned for scoring. Neither of the raters was a conversation partner in the tests. Each of them watched the video-recorded students’ performance on the tests and gave assessments of the scores. The raters were not given any information about the candidates’ English proficiency to avoid a halo effect. All results were tabulated, and the interrater reliability was estimated by Cronbach’s alpha. The result was .89, which represented a high degree of correlation. To examine whether participants’ general English proficiency before the training related to their development of proficiency, all participants took a Secondary Level English Proficiency (SLEP) test 1 week before the course. The SLEP test is a well-established standardized test that measures the ability to understand spoken and written English for secondary-level students whose native language is not English. Scores on the SLEP can be roughly converted to Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores (ETS, 1991, p. 5). The test is short and convenient (45 minutes for the listening part and 45 minutes for the

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) reading part), and it is suitable for determining Japanese students’ English proficiency level (see, e.g., Kamimoto & Kawauchi, 1999). The participants’ SLEP scores were relatively low (mean = 73.5; TOEFL equivalent score = 350). The correlation between the oral pretest and the SLEP test was .721 using the Pearson product-moment correlation statement of the statistical relationship between the two sets of scores. This result indicates that the oral communication test and the SLEP test were, to some extent, measuring common English proficiency skills, and this provided partial evidence for the concurrent validity of the oral communication test. Discourse Data Analysis for Research Question 1 To investigate what kinds of variables on discourse data contributed to gains in oral proficiency in the conversation tests, stepwise multiple regression analysis was used. This analysis has been widely used for strategy research to estimate how well the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variables (e.g., Pardon & Waxman, 1988; Takeuchi, 1993). It is also useful for identifying which subset from many measures is the most effective for assessing the dependent variable (cf. Bryman & Crammer, 1990). All participants’ (n = 62) oral posttest scores were used as the dependent variable. The oral pretest scores, SLEP test scores, which were measures of general English proficiency, and the posttest discourse data were used as independent variables. The discourse data included the production rate, the number of errors, and the use of achievement strategies and reduction strategies. The SPSS 9.0 (SPSS, 1999) statistical package was used for analyzing the data. The explanation of each independent variable is given in the following texts. Discourse Data Videotaped interactions in the posttest were transcribed and analyzed. Another trained observer reviewed the transcripts, while watching the videotapes, with specific focus on segmentation of the utterances and the content of each utterance. The intercorder reliability estimate for discourse data is approximately 95%. Production Rates. Participants’ production rates in their transcription data were counted by the number of words per c-unit, which indicates how many words the students used for an utterance. A c-unit is defined as an utterance such

121

Yasuo Nakatani as a word, phrase, or sentence, that provides referential or pragmatic meaning to an interaction (see Brock, 1986). C-unit analysis was useful to assess the Japanese EFL students’ performance, as their discourse consisted of many one-word utterances and incomplete sentences. Participants’ false starts, slips, and unnecessary self-repetitions in an effort to buy time were excluded from the number of words because they were not deemed to have any pragmatic meaning.

research is presented in the following to clarify how the data were analyzed.

Number of Errors. Students’ errors were analyzed in the transcription data by measuring the number of global errors and local errors (see, e.g., Burt & Kiparsky, 1972). The former represents serious errors in the content of utterances caused by learners’ misunderstandings of the interlocutor’s intention or expressions inappropriate to the context. The latter includes minor errors that do not affect the conversation flow seriously, such as the misuse of morphemes, tense, or prepositions. Examples of these errors collected from the data are listed in the following section. Errors are indicated in italics.

Help-Seeking Strategies. There were two types of help-seeking strategies: Appeal for help and asking for repetition. The former was used when seeking interlocutors’ assistance to solve problems caused by a lack of TL knowledge. The latter was used when requesting repetition after not hearing or understanding what a partner said. These strategies are exemplified as follows:

Achievement Strategies. The following categories were classified as achievement strategies: Help-seeking strategies, signals for negotiation, modified output, time-gaining strategies, response for maintenance strategies, and selfrepairing strategies. Most of these were suggested for use during the lessons (see Appendix B).

APPEAL FOR HELP I’m sorry. Speak slowly, please. ASKING FOR REPETITION Please say that again.

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 I don’t have a reservation in your name. Customer: Oh, I book a tour to L.A. two months ago. (booked)

Signals for Negotiation. Interlocutors sent signals for negotiation in an attempt to overcome communication difficulties. As discussed earlier, such strategies consisted of confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification requests. CONFIRMATION CHECKS You mean there is no bargain tour? COMPREHENSION CHECKS

Strategy Use

You see what I said?

As discussed earlier, CSs are divided into achievement and reduction strategies. The general consensus is that the former presents learners’ active behavior in repairing and maintaining interaction; the latter reflects learners’ negative behavior in avoiding solving communication difficulties, which is common among lowproficiency learners. Although the participants were encouraged to use positive CSs during the lessons (see Apendix B), they occasionally used negative strategies when facing actual communication problems in the tests. These two types of strategies observed in the discourse data were subcategorized into several strategies based on previous representative studies (e.g., Bialystok, 1983; D¨ornyei & Scott, 1997; Faerch & Kasper, 1983a; Tarone, 1980). A detailed explanation of these strategies and examples collected in the current

CLARIFICATION REQUESTS What does it mean? Modified Output. When responding to partners’ signals for negotiation, interlocutors modified their previous utterance to improve mutual understanding and continue the interaction. It has been argued that learners are given opportunities to produce more advanced grammatical utterances when trying to convey meaning in the TL (Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell, 1996; Swain, 1985). The use of modified output could lead them to improve IL morphosyntax by manipulating it in creative and complex ways. An example from the data follows, with the modified output in italics. Customer: 10 o’clock start?

122 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 D¨ornyei (1995) pointed out, when learners have difficulties, they need to use specific strategies to gain time to think and to keep the communication channel open. The participants were encouraged to use these strategies, or “fillers,” in the OCS guide sheet (see Appendix B). The conscious use of fillers such as “Let me see . . .” and filled pauses such as “Umm . . .” enabled them to keep the conversation going 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 types of strategies comprised a response for maintenance: providing active response and shadowing . The former was characterized by making positive comments or using other conversation gambits such as “I see” and “It sounds good.” The latter consisted of exact, partial, or expanded repetition of the interlocutor’s preceding utterance to show the listener’s understanding of important issues. Therefore, shadowing is functionally different from other types of repetition such as false starts and self-repetitions. PROVIDING ACTIVE RESPONSE I see. It sounds good to me. SHADOWING Travel agent: . . . and it arrives at Los Angeles at 10:00 o’clock. Customer: Los Angeles at 10:00. I’d like to join the tour Disneyland at 10:00. Self-Repairing Strategies. Even without receiving signals for negotiation, participants sometimes noticed their own problems caused by insufficient linguistic resources. They used self-repairing strategies to solve problems without the interlocutor’s help. These strategies were different from modified output, which were only introduced when receiving a signal for negotiation. Participants tried to find relevant linguistic items or expressions by using paraphrase, approximation, and restructuring . Paraphrase takes the form of exemplification or circumlocution in describing characteristic properties or functions of an intended term. Approximation is a strategy in which learners use an alternative expression that has similar semantic features to the intended term. Restruc-

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) turing is used when learners realized their own difficulty in completing a sentence and switch to another expression to communicate the intended message. PARAPHRASE I want to use . . . traveler’s paper money. (instead of check) 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 consisted of the following: Message abandonment strategies, first-language (L1)-based strategies, and IL-based reduction strategies. As these strategies did not seem to facilitate EFL learners’ interaction, they were not taught during the lessons. However, they emerged in the testing phase, during which the participants had a lot of pressure. Message Abandonment Strategies. When facing problems in the TL, participants avoided engaging in communication and used message abandonment strategies. When they were not able to find appropriate forms or rules, they stopped in midsentence and left a message unfinished. They sometimes paused for a long time without appealing to the interlocutor to help finish the utterance. In the most extreme cases, they kept silent without any response, as in the following example. Travel agent: . . . There is no bargain tour available. Customer: [long pause] L1-Based Strategies. First-language-based strategies refer to resorting to the use of the L1 (in this case, Japanese) for a lexical item when experiencing communication difficulties. The participants occasionally used Japanese either intentionally or unintentionally. Travel agent: There is no bargain tour. Customer: Bargain? I . . . wakaranai . . . (I don’t know) IL-Based Reduction Strategies. Interlanguagebased reduction strategies occur when learners face communication problems due to a lack of linguistic resources associated with lower proficiency. They sometimes avoid using certain

123

Yasuo Nakatani language structures or specific topics. By cutting out some intended elements, they occasionally produce inappropriate word order based on their IL system. Travel agent: Your flight arrives at 10 o’clock at Los 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 correlation statistic was used to investigate the relationships between learners’ test scores on the posttest and their frequent use of specific OCSs elicited by the OCSI (Nakatani, 2002, 2006). After the posttest, the OCSI was used to measure the variety and frequency of students’ OCS use through a structured self-report questionnaire (see Appendix F). To measure the traits of students’ OCS use through reliable and valid data, the OCSI was developed by factor analysis, using 400 Japanese EFL students’ self-reported data. The OCSI consists of two different parts: Strategies for coping with speaking problems, with 32 items, and strategies for coping with listening problems, with 26 items. Each part is divided into several factor dimensions based on the factor analysis, with the intention that each factor would have an adequate number of items to facilitate more in-depth understanding of OCS use. The speaking part includes the following eight factors: Social affective, fluencyoriented, negotiation for speaking , accuracy-oriented, message reduction and alteration, nonverbal message for speaking , message abandonment, and attempt to think in English strategies. The listening part includes seven factors as follows: Negotiation for listening , fluency-maintaining , scanning, getting the gist, nonverbal message, less active listener , and wordoriented strategies. This instrument showed highly acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha was .86 for the speaking part and .85 for the listening part). The concurrent validity of the OCSI was demonstrated through correlation analysis with the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), which is regarded as an established tool for diagnostic purposes to find the relative degree of an individual learner’s strategy use (see, e.g., Oxford, 1996; speaking part: r = 0.62, listening part: r = 0.57). The data elicited by the OCSI can be used for statistical analyses to assess learners’ frequent use of strategies in communicative tasks (Nakatani, 2006). Retrospective Protocol Analysis for Research Question 3 To examine whether high- and low-proficiency students recognized their use of OCSs differently,

verbal report protocol data were analyzed. This method has been recognized as an important technique in investigating learners’ intentions for strategy use during communicative tasks (e.g., Clennel, 1995; Cohen, 1998; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzares, Russo, & Kupper, 1985). In this study, all participants reviewed their posttest task performance by listening to the audiotape recorded during the conversation test. They were instructed to record their thoughts in Japanese on another tape recorder while listening to their task performance tape. They were supposed to report what they thought when facing communication difficulties and how they used OCSs. These verbal reports were transcribed and used for data to understand the students’ reasons for and personal reactions to their strategy use. The verbatim transcripts were coded for the appearance and incidence of OCSs by using the taxonomy presented in the Discourse Data Analysis session. Another teacher was asked to examine the transcripts independently, which led to similar results. Based on the results of the oral posttest, the highest 10 and the lowest 10 students’ retrospective transcribed data were chosen to examine how differently higher and lower proficiency students recognized OCS use. I have translated these retrospective data into English. Examples are shown in Tables 3 and 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Research Question 1: Investigation of Variables That Predict Students’ Posttest Performance Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between variables collected in students’ transcription data and their oral proficiency in the posttest. Descriptive statistics for the analysis can be seen in Appendix G. Table 1 shows the final model of the stepwise multiple regression analysis. The table includes unstandardized coefficients, standardized β coefficients, and t-values. β coefficients are used to assess the usefulness of each predictor in the model. The higher the b value, the greater the impact of the predictor on the dependent variable (cf. Vermunt, 1998). The F -ratio of the final model was 13.9 (p < .001), which means the model was meaningful for analyzing the variables in the data. The R 2 increment of the final model was .493, which indicates that the regression model accounts for almost half of the variance in the dependent variable. The result of the analysis showed that four variables were positively related to the conversation posttest scores (p < .05). They were response

124

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010)

TABLE 1 Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for Transcription Data

Independent Variables (Constant) Response for Maintenance Production Rate Signals for Negotiation Oral Pretest

Unstandardized Coefficients B −0.40 0.10 0.79 0.11 0.21

Std. Errors

Standardized Coefficients β

0.77 0.03 0.33 0.05 0.11

.35 .27 .21 .19

t −0.52 3.27 2.41 2.06 1.91

Sig. 0.603 0.002∗∗ 0.019∗ 0.044∗ 0.062

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

for maintenance strategies, production rate, signals for negotiation, and the result of the oral pretest scores. The most significant predictor of their performance was the response for maintenance strategies (β = .35). Students who appropriately used providing active response and shadowing during the interaction tended to get higher scores. It can, therefore, be said that their use of strategies to keep the conversation smooth was significantly related to their oral communication ability in English. By using these strategies, the students reduced communication breakdowns, which made their speech more fluent. They were able to involve their interlocutors appropriately to develop their interaction meaningfully. The next significant variable was the production rate (β = .27), defined as the number of words per c-unit in the students’ speech. Students who produced longer utterances were given good scores on the posttest. Although the mere production of long utterances does not always mean that learners speak better English in other contexts, high-scoring students tend to become better at taking longer turns when using English for oral communication. The third significant predictor was signals for negotiation (β = .21), which consists of confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification requests during the interaction. This result supports the prediction in previous research that these negotiating behaviors enable learners to gain opportunities to develop their productive capacity in the TL (e.g., Doughty & Pica, 1986; Pica, 2002; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Varonis & Gass, 1985). In particular, the current study has demonstrated a clear relationship between the incidence of negotiated interaction and increases in oral communication ability. Hence,

the more frequently the students engaged in negotiation, the better score they gained. They were led into careful checking, clarifying, and reacting to problem utterances during their interaction. It can be said that they made the best use of the possible benefits of interaction, which facilitated their TL communication. Yet, one thing to note is that although students used modified output when receiving signals for negotiation, as seen in Appendix G, the number of instances of modified output was relatively small (M = 0.97). This may account for the fact that modified output was not a significant predictor of their performance. Therefore, the students were able negotiate with each other to enhance mutual understanding, but they might not have had enough opportunities to develop TL accuracy during interaction. The final variable that had a positive correlation with student achievement was the students’ pretest scores. Their oral proficiency before the course could have affected their posttest results, yet this variable was not a significant predictor (p = .062). This can be explained by the fact that, generally, participants’ English speaking ability was very low at the beginning, and some improved significantly after the courses. Therefore, the change in other variables contributed to the posttest performance more significantly than their original English speaking ability did. The same may be true of the result that their general proficiency assessed by the SLEP test were not related to their TL development. There were still many errors in all students’ posttest discourse, which may explain why the number of errors could not predict the Japanese EFL learners’ posttest results. This section focused on the students’ actual strategy usage in the transcription data. Next, let us consider how their recognition of strategy

125

Yasuo Nakatani usage contributed to the development of their oral proficiency. Research Question 2: Relationship Between Reported Frequency of Oral Communication Strategy Use and Posttest Scores The results of the Pearson correlation statistic showed that there were several significant positive correlations between learners’ posttest scores and their report on the OCSI. As shown in Table 2, among the strategies for coping with speaking problems, reported frequent use of social affective strategies positively correlated to oral proficiency (p < .01). The more students paid attention to controlling their feelings to reduce anxiety and to start enjoying their conversation, the better the score they were given in the conversation test. As fluency-oriented strategies had positive correlation with the oral posttest (p < .01), using strategies for keeping conversation flow could have a positive effect on students’ TL development. Although the correlation was not very strong (r = .275; p < .05), it can be noted that the higher scoring students tended to report more use of strategies for negotiation to avoid communication disruptions. These results

were almost consistent with the findings of the previous section on discourse analysis. Therefore, the use of strategies for maintaining discourse and sending signals for negotiation could have a positive impact on students’ oral proficiency development. There were negative correlations between participants’ posttest scores and reported frequent use of message abandonment strategies and attempt to think in English strategies, but they were not significant. These strategies might have a negative effect on the development of students’ TL conversation abilities. With respect to strategies for coping with listening problems, learners’ posttest oral proficiency correlated with the reported use of fluencymaintaining strategies and nonverbal strategies while listening (p < .05). The results indicate that students who reacted smoothly to speakers’ utterances and made use of nonverbal information to support their understanding were able to obtain better scores on the conversation test. Notably, however, there was no correlation between learners’ posttest scores and negotiation for meaning while listening strategies. Does the use of strategies for sending signals for negotiation during reception problems have little effect on

TABLE 2 Correlations Between Posttest Rating and Communication Strategy Groups on OCSI Strategies for Coping with Speaking Problems During Communicative Tasks r 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

.402 .342 .275 .124 .165 .212 −.165 −.105

Sig. ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗

Strategies for Coping with Listening Problems During Communicative Tasks r 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

.005 .256 .180 .125 .250 −.082 .092

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

Sig. ∗ ∗

126 TL oral proficiency development? It is not easy to answer this question. As shown in Appendix F, this strategy group consists not only of strategies for clarification requests but also of asking for repetition, reducing speech speed, and showing comprehension difficulties. As Aston (1986) claimed, the use of these strategies could interfere with maintaining interaction smoothly, which may not contribute to improving students’ conversation during the task. Research Question 3: Retrospective Protocol Analysis The results of retrospective protocol analysis dealing with the data of 10 high and 10 low students are presented in Tables 3 and 4. As shown in Table 3, the high-proficiency students clearly recognized their use of response for main-

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) tenance strategies (Students A, F, and G). They also used time-gaining strategies (Students B, E, and J). Thus, they paid attention to maintaining conversation flow and avoiding communication gaps to enhance their interaction. The students reported using signals for negotiation and modifying their utterances to improve mutual understanding (Students A, B, and E). The use of social affective strategies was also reported on the retrospective data (Students C, E, and I). This result corresponds with the result of the OCSI in the previous section. As a conversation test in English was a stressful situation for Japanese learners, it was easy for them to lose confidence when faced with a communication problem. Therefore, they needed these strategies to control affective factors. Some students recognized positive efforts in using their own expressions and

TABLE 3 Retrospective Protocol of High-Proficiency Students Student A I 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 not hesitate to ask questions in order to make clear what my partner wanted to say. Student B When 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. I used fillers to avoid inappropriate breaks. Student C Last 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 feel much better about speaking English. But I sometimes stopped my conversation. Student D When 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 instead of just saying a single word. Student E I 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 to understand the main points of the speaker’s utterance. Student F I 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 G I 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 understand what he said. Student H When 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 I I 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 J I 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.

Yasuo Nakatani

127

TABLE 4 Retrospective Protocol of Low-Proficiency Students Student K At 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 such unexpected situations. Student L I 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 M I’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 track of what I was saying. Student N I 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 O When 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 P I 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 myself understood. Student Q I 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 R When 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 S I took too much time to think how to make English sentences. I feel strongly that I lack knowledge of English vocabulary and grammar. Student T I 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 to be motivated to make conversation in English. In general, high-proficiency students tended to report positive strategies. Some students, however, noticed their communication deficiencies (Students C and J). By reflecting on their own performance, learners were able to diagnose their weaknesses. With regard to low-proficiency students, they showed awareness of their shortcomings in the reports. By looking at these protocols in Table 4, we can understand more clearly why the conversation task was difficult for the students and how they reacted in such a situation. Judging from the data, we can infer that the students experienced two kinds of difficulties: Affective and cognitive. Affective difficulties are caused by the lack of experience in using English in authentic contexts or conversation test contexts. Japanese learners rarely use English to make real decisions about what they wish to achieve or adjust their language according to

those decisions. They also have little experience on conversation tests. For the low-level learners, a 12-week course of communicative lessons was not long enough to improve their affective factors. Consequently, they felt under pressure to produce the TL accurately but could not always find ways to respond to unpredictable situations (Students L, M, N, and Q). Cognitive difficulties are caused by a lack of linguistic, sociolinguitic, or strategic knowledge. Learners had problems finding the vocabulary and grammar they needed to produce appropriate expressions and to understand the input properly (Students S and T). They did not know how to predict or manage their communication problems (Students K, M, and P). This classification has useful pedagogical implications: Instead of forcing learners to practice conversation randomly, we should introduce tasks that aim at improving known communication problems. In sum, low-proficiency students lacked sufficient strategic knowledge to maintain their

128 interaction or linguistic knowledge for spontaneous communication. The results here indicate that it is important to organize specific training for low-proficiency students who were unable to develop OCS use within the current teaching program. They should be enrolled in a small group program in which they can take their time to learn the TL gradually. They need special care and should be provided with opportunities for success to improve their confidence and the use of OCSs. We see that the success of the students could be attributed in part to their conscious participation in communicative achievements. The highproficiency students noticed the usefulness of strategies for maintaining conversation flow. They seem to have raised their awareness of using OCSs such as negotiation of meaning to solve potential communication problems. CONCLUSIONS As there was no control group, the findings of this study should be taken as suggestive rather than definitive. The results of the multiple data analyses dealing with the transcription data, OCSI data, and retrospective protocol data were mutually supportive in general. The stepwise multiple regression analysis for discourse data showed that the use of response for maintenance and signals for negotiation strategies were significantly related to the oral test scores. High-proficiency students showed clear awareness of using strategies to fill communication gaps and negotiate meaning to enhance mutual understanding both on the questionnaire and in their retrospective protocols. Thus, the frequent use of specific OCSs, such as making efforts for maintaining conversation flow and negotiation of meaning, could contribute to the oral proficiency development of EFL learners with sufficient proficiency. It can be assumed that the integrated OCS approach, which includes strategies for negotiation as well as communication enhancers, is beneficial for EFL training. However, there is still room for argument concerning how strategies for negotiation lead to TL development. For example, this study did not fully answer the questions raised by Porter (1986): Negotiation over grammatical morphology is rare, which may not offer learners opportunities to develop TL forms. In this study, the students used modified output when they received signals for negotiation from the interlocutor. Yet, it is still unclear whether such behaviors could develop learners’ TL accuracy. Although negotiation

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) devices help learners obtain opportunities to modify their previous utterances, they may not be necessarily indicative of the development of their accuracy. Overall, it can be safely said that negotiation strategies provide learners with opportunities to attend to TL form and to relationships between the form and meaning, after having noticed the usefulness of these strategies. As this type of strategy research is still in its initial stage, further in-depth investigations are needed to mitigate the limitations of the current research. Twelve weeks of OCS training seemed to develop some learners’ motivation to talk in English. However, merely offering ample opportunities to use the TL is not enough to control anxiety for other students, especially when they face unexpected difficulties. Therefore, it is essential to develop strategy training specific for low-proficiency students. As this study did not investigate how a student’s learning style affects his or her classroom behavior, it is a debatable point whether the student’s learning style will fit the strategy training for gaining specific interaction skills. Moreover, future studies should be carried out across different types of groups. The students in the study were college-level female Japanese EFL learners. It could be argued that because the research context was homogeneous in nature, the results of the current research can only be generalized to populations that share similar characteristics. It is meaningful to examine relationships between the strategy use of male groups or gender-mixed groups and their conversation test performance. As the current research did not conduct a delayed posttest, future studies should examine the longitudinal effects of OCS training on students’ oral proficiency.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank The Modern Language Journal reviewers and editor for their insightful comments and useful suggestions. I am solely responsible for any remaining errors and omissions.

REFERENCES Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128–143. Bejarano, Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997). The skill use of interaction strategies: Creating a framework for improved small-group communication interaction in the language classroom. System, 25, 203–213.

Yasuo Nakatani Bialystok, E. (1983). Inferencing: Testing the “hypothesis-testing” hypothesis. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 104–123). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Brock, C. (1986). The effect of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 47– 59. Bryman, A., & Crammer, D. (1990). Quantitative data analysis for social scientists. London: Routledge. Burt, M. K., & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The gooficon: A repair manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. W. Oller, Jr. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. Chen, S.-Q. (1990). A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning, 40, 155–187. Clennel, C. (1995). Communication strategies of adult ESL learners: A discourse perspective. Prospect, 10, 4–20. Cohen, A. D. (1998) Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex, UK: Longman. Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & Li, T.-Y. (1998). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. In A. D. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp. 107– 156). Essex, UK: Longman. Dadour, S., & Robbins, J. (1996). University-level studies using strategy instruction to improve speaking ability in Egypt and Japan. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Crosscultural perspective (pp. 157–166). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. D¨ornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55–85. D¨ornyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and 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 test manual (5th ed.). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983a). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 210–238). London: Longman. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983b). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning, 34, 45–63.

129 Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–26. Huang, X.-H., & Naerssen, M. (1987). Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied Linguistics, 8, 287–307. Kamimoto, T., & Kawauchi, C. (1999). The effect of repetition on EFL oral fluency: A quantitative approach. Kumamotogakuen Daigaku Bungaku Gengo Ronbunshu, 7, 1–24. Kellerman, E., & Bialystok, E. (1997). On psychological plausibility in the study of communication strategies. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies (pp. 304–322). Essex, UK: Longman. Labarca, A., & Khanji, R. (1986). On communication strategies: Focus on interaction. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 8, 68–79. Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communicative strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22, 241– 265. Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistics and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–194. Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversation and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377–405. Nakatani, Y. (2002). Improving oral proficiency through strategy training . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Birmingham, UK. Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. Modern Language Journal, 89, 76–91. Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an Oral Communication Strategy Inventory. Modern Language Journal, 90, 151–168. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies 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 strategies applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557–584. Oxford, R. L. (1996). Afterword: What have we learned about language learning strategies around the world? In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspective. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Pardon, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1988). The effects of EFL students’ perceptions of their cognitive strategies on reading achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 146–150. Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In

130 S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 115–132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84. Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussion. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Poulisse, N. (1987). Problems and solutions in the classification of compensatory strategies. Second Language Research, 3, 141–153. Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1987). The use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of compensatory 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 in interaction: Typology and teachability. Language Leaning, 41, 235–273. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press. SPSS. (1999). SPSS Base 9.0 applications guide. Chicago: SPSS. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensi-

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) ble output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Takeuchi, O. (1993). Language learning strategies and their relationship to achievement in English as a foreign language. Language Laboratory, 30, 17–34. Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417–431. Tarone, E., Cohen, A., & Dumas, G. (1976). A closer look at some interlanguage terminology. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 9, 76–90. Varonis, E., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90. Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149–171. Williams, J., Inscoe, R., & Tasker, T. (1997). Communication strategies in an interactional context: The mutual 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 strategies and negotiated input in SLA. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, M. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 176–196). Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

APPENDIX A Course Syllabus Week 1. Introduction of the course Topic: Objectives of the course Delivering OCS sheet and explaining how to use CSs for communicative tasks. Week 2. Pre-speaking test Topic: Booking a tour at a travel agency Functions: Asking for travel information Vocabulary: Classes of travel Grammar: What would you recommend? I prefer to. . . Week 3. Greeting Topic: Self-introductions Functions: Asking for and giving information Vocabulary: Openers, closers Grammar: Where..? How..? Week 4. Breaking the ice Topic: Likes and dislikes Functions: Asking people’s preferences Vocabulary: Hobbies, types of music, movies Grammar: What kind of..? Week 5. Making dates with friends Topic: Appointments and dates Functions: Making appointments Vocabulary: Places, dates, times Grammar: Future tense/How about..?

Yasuo Nakatani Week 6. Restaurant conversation Topic: Ordering at restaurants Functions: Taking orders for food Vocabulary: Menus, bills Grammar: What is..? It’s a kind of. . . How would you like to..? Week 7. Hotel stay Topic: Using hotel services and facilities Functions: Asking for help in a hotel Vocabulary: Hotel facilities Grammar: There’s a problem with. . . Where can I get. . .? Week 8. Let’s shop at a department store Topic: Shopping Functions: Inquiring about where to buy and what to buy Vocabulary: Directions Grammar: There’s a problem with. . . Where can I get. . .? Week 9. Flight reservation Topic: Making flight reservations Functions: Inquiring about flight schedules Vocabulary: Flight information, schedules Grammar: Would you confirm..? Which airlines..? Week 10. At the airport Topic: Airport check-in Functions: Checking in, dealing with travel documents Vocabulary: Luggage, regulations Grammar: What is the flight number..? Could you make..? Week 11. Review Self evaluation Answering the questionnaires Week 12. Post-speaking test Topic: Booking a tour at a travel agency

APPENDIX B Oral Communication Strategy Guide Sheet 1. Appeal for help I don’t understand./I don’t follow you. What does . . . mean? 2. Asking for repetition Sorry?/Pardon? Can you say that again, please? 3. Comprehension checks Do you understand?/Do you know what I mean? Is it OK? 4. Confirmation checks You mean. . . Is that . . . ? 5. Clarification requests What did you say?/What do you mean? Could you explain that again? 6. Using fillers Well . . ./Let me see . . ./Um . . ./Mm . . ./Uh . . . How can I say?

131

132

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010)

7. Response for maintenance Right./I see. Is that right?/Oh yeah? Oh really? That’ s great/good. 8. Self-repairing When having difficulties in finding relevant expressions, use similar words, circumlocutions or give examples. It is a kind of . . ./For example . . .

APPENDIX C Teaching 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 oral communication 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 procedures. 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 role card which deals with the simulated communicative context. They prepare agendas to fulfill the roles assigned 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 the task. After finishing the simulation task with the first pair, they change the partner and carry it out again with the next partner. 5. Evaluation (10 minutes). After active practice with the task, learners check and reflect on their own learning. They review their strategy use.

APPENDIX D Oral 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 Los Angeles for three days starting tomorrow. This tour was advertised in a newspaper ad at $150. You have come here to get the travel voucher. Please use a traveler’s check for payment and ask about the flight schedule for tomorrow. You intend to go on the Disneyland tour, which your guidebook states 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 the customers’ data, which the clerk before you used. You can only accept cash or a credit card. All bargain 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.

133

Yasuo Nakatani APPENDIX E Oral Communication Assessment Scale for Japanese EFL Students Level 7 Almost always communicates effectively in the task Speech 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 task Is not quite fluent but interacts effectively. Can generally react flexibly. Makes a positive contribution to the dialogue. Level 5 Communicates reasonably effectively in the task Is 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 task Makes some pauses but fairly intelligible. Shows some flexibility. Is somewhat independent of the interlocutor in the dialogue. Level 3 Communicates modestly in the task Makes frequent pauses but somewhat intelligible. Shows little flexibility. Can maintain dialogue but in a rather passive way. Level 2 Communicates marginally in the task Makes 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 task Can 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 F Oral 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

I try to relax when I feel anxious.

I try to enjoy the conversation.

I try to give a good impression to the listener.

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

I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t mind taking risks even though I might make mistakes.

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

Point

SUM

(

)

Average

(

)

(Continued)

134

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010)

No.

Items

I pay attention to my rhythm and intonation.

I pay attention to my pronunciation.

I pay attention to the conversation flow.

I change my way of saying things according to the context in order to continue conversations.

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

I try to speak clearly and loudly to make myself heard.

I make comprehension checks to ensure the listener understands what I want to say.

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

While speaking, I pay attention to the listener’s reaction to my speech.

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

I pay attention to grammar and word order during conversation.

I notice myself using an expression which fits a rule that I have learned.

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

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

I try to talk like a native speaker.

I reduce the message and use simple expressions.

I use words which are familiar to me.

I replace the original message with another message because of feeling incapable of executing my original intent.

I try to make eye contact when I am talking.

I use gestures and facial expressions if I can’t communicate what I want to say.

I leave a message unfinished because of some language difficulty.

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

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

I abandon the execution of a verbal plan and just say some words when I don’t know how to express myself.

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

I try to think of what I want to say not in my native language but English.

Point

SUM

Average

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

PART 2 Strategies for coping with listening problems during communicative tasks

No.

Items

I ask for repetition when I can’t understand what the speaker has said.

I make a clarification request when I am not sure what the speaker has said.

Point

SUM

Average

(Continued)

135

Yasuo Nakatani

No.

Items

I ask the speaker to use easy words when I have difficulties in comprehension.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I pay attention to the speaker’s pronunciation.

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

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

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

I try to catch the speaker’s main point.

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

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

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

I try to respond to the speaker even when I don’t understand him/her perfectly.

I use gestures when I have difficulties in understanding.

I pay attention to the speaker’s eye-contact, facial expression and gestures.

I try to translate into native language little by little to understand what the speaker has said.

I only focus on familiar expressions.

I pay attention to the words which the speaker slows down or emphasizes.

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

I try to catch every word that the speaker uses.

I pay attention to the first word to judge whether it is an interrogative sentence or not.

Point

SUM

Average

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

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

136

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010)

APPENDIX G Descriptive Statistics from Multiple Regression Analysis (N = 62) 1. Oral Communication Test Pretest Posttest 2. SLEP Test Results Listening Reading

Average 2.4 2.68 Average 40.7 34.5

SD 1.3 1.45 SD 7.69 5.37

3. Production Rate C-unit total C-unit average

4. Number of Errors

154 2.48

Total

Average

Global errors Local errors

66 282

1.06 4.55

Total errors

348

5.61

5. Strategies on Discourse Data

Total

Average

a. Help-seeking strategies b. Signals for negotiation c. Modified output d. Time-gaining strategies e. Response for maintenance f. Self-repairing strategy

52 195 60 77 361 79

0.84 3.15 0.97 1.24 5.82 1.27

Achievement strategies total

823

13.27

g. Message abandonment h. L1-based i. IL-based reduction

962 87 254

15.52 1.40 4.10

Reduction strategies total

1303

21.0