Effective practices for teaching oral language through genres and an instructional program that incorporates them

Abstract

This contribution has a twofold objective: (1) to list effective practices for teaching oral language through genres, based on the latest research findings and (2) to propose a training program that uses these practices. To achieve this aim, we first explore effective practices for teaching oral language through genres, based on the literature. In the second part, we present Itineraries, an instructional program that implements these effective practices.

Introduction

Oral practice at school

Four ways of considering oral language at school are generally distinguished (PLANE, 2015; WIERTZ et al., 2020[1]). First, oral language occurs in ordinary communication situations. These can take place between teacher and students, and between students, and they do not depend on a particular learning context. Second, oral language is used in pedagogical situations, as part of the interactions making up the life of the class: the transmission and hearing of information, instructions or question/answer type exchanges. Oral communication is then the medium through which the pedagogical relationship unfolds. Third, oral communication can be considered as a teaching and learning tool in the disciplines. It is then a reflexive speaking. Fourth, oral language can itself be an object of learning. It is in this context that it is the subject of specific teaching–learning sequences designed to develop students' oral language skills.

As far as formal instruction is concerned, this fourth dimension of oral language at school, as a learning object, is increasingly present as an issue. Indeed, "oral language education has gained a clear place in L1-curricula all over the world" (WURTH et al., 2019, p. 2). For example, in our school context of French-speaking Belgium, the new regulations specify that "disciplinary skills - listening/reading, speaking/writing - must be of equal importance" (PACTE POUR UN ENSEIGNEMENT D'EXCELLENCE, 2017, p. 48[2]). For all that, and despite the intentions expressed, in some school programs, there is little clarity on what to teach and how (DUMAIS; SOUCY, 2020[3]).

In classrooms, oral language has struggled to become a real object of instruction (COLOGNESI; DESCHEPPER, 2019[4]; DUPONT, 2020[5]; GAGNON; DE PIETRO; FISHER, 2017[6]; SIMARD et al., 2019[7]). On the one hand, this is because teachers say they are ill-equipped to teach it (COLOGNESI; DOLZ, 2017[8]; DUMAIS; LAFONTAINE; PHARAND, 2017[9]; SÉNÉCHAL, 2017[10]; SIMARD et al., 2019[7]; WIERTZ et al., 2021). On the other hand, the components and modes of evaluating it are complex (GAGNON et al., 2017[6]). In addition, oral language has a lower status compared to written language because the acquisition of the written code is more visible in schooling (KALDAHL, 2019[11]). Moreover, the possible difficulty of "keeping traces" of teaching–learning activities dedicated to oral language tends to make its operationalization, visibility, and progression in the classroom complex. Revising oral performances (FAYOL, 2007[12]) and archiving them can pose a problem.

In pre-service and in-service teacher training, the teaching and learning of oral language is not at all or hardly represented in training programs. When it is, it is in an occasional and limited way, unlike training in reading or writing skills (CÔTÉ; PELLERIN, 2017[13]; VIOLA et al., 2015[14]).

Finally, the teaching–learning of oral language is complex. It is complex in terms of the conditions under which it is carried out (time, traces, …), the characterization of its components, the methods of its evaluation, and the relative lack of reference points (training, programs) on which to base instructional sequences. All of this contributes to making teachers insecure. This reinforces the continued usage of highly stereotyped activities in teaching oral communication. These activities are also reassuring because the teachers have often experienced them as students themselves.

Thus, for example, the most popular practices in exercise how to speak are recitation, speaking in the service of self-expression such as expressing the mood of the day or an opinion about an incident), and delivering a presentation (COLOGNESI; DESCHEPPER, 2019[4]). All of these practices are immediately functional. They call upon all oral skills without focusing on one or another more specifically. This makes them complex for students to implement. For listening skills, the practice of administering a listening skills questionnaire is the most common intervention in class (COLOGNESI; DESCHEPPER, 2019[4]). Yet, this tends more to assess an already existing competence than to teach oral comprehension strategies (GAGNON; MARTINET, 2021[15]).

In view of all this, there are therefore real issues at stake in considering the guidelines that can help teachers instruct oral language usage in the classroom.

The perspective of working by genres in the teaching–learning of the oral language

Even though oral language occupies a major place in people's out-of-school daily lives, much more so than written language (LAFONTAINE, 2016[16]), its teaching–learning in the classroom remains secondary. Teaching by genres no longer has to prove itself for the written word. But it has not yet been implemented for oral genres (MATIAS et al., 2020[17]; DOLZ; SCHNEUWLY, 2009[18]). Few of them are covered in class. And if they are, it is without necessarily being the object of specific teaching–learning.

The genres used in working on oral language are thus often the same: the presentation, which is often practiced, rarely taught, or recitation, whose generic authenticity is essentially, if not exclusively, academic. Yet, teaching oral language through genres would allow students to develop their listening–speaking skills in the real-life formats of communication situations they confront or will be confronted with. This is what is at stake in the teaching–learning of oral language in the classroom: teaching students to communicate orally and to understand the oral messages that surround them, in both their diversity and their specific characteristics.

Genre-based instruction in oral communication has been currently advocated for teaching oral language, both by researchers (CHARTRAND; ÉMERY-BRUNEAU; SÉNÉCHAL, 2015[19]; DOLZ; GAGNON, 2008[20]) and by frameworks for language teaching (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2001[21]). Teaching oral language through oral genres would make it possible to take into account what students have learned in instruction on writing in the service of benefit oral language, which would therefore bring several advantages.

First, the generic perspective allows understanding oral language from an effective communicative perspective. The genre, which corresponds to an existing communicative practice, carries with it a series of specific oral usages in which oral language use is associated with different discursive and social situations (DOLZ; GAGNON, 2008[20]; HORVERAK, 2016[22]; HYLAND, 2003[23]). Mastering these generic frameworks provides learners with language basics. These basics are necessary to deal adequately with the different life situations that will require calling upon them.

Second, the existing instructional activities for working on written genres can be used to support work on the oral genre. Certain oral genres lend themselves well to the need for in-depth work. This is particularly true of public genres, which can be prepared in advance and are subject to rehearsal (JAUBERT, 2007[24]). This allows getting away from the feeling of immediacy that oral presentations provide, and instead to prepare, anticipate, analyze, and improve a presentation.

Finally, working on genres where the oral language is prepared and rehearsed allows showing the students that taking charge of a complex oral presentation takes time. The presentation is prepared and discussed with others. This makes it possible to place the learning of oral language in a “co-actional approach” that is as valid for the mother tongue as for second languages (PUREN, 2002[25]).

This also makes it possible to anticipate, and if possible, to take charge of, the emotional dimension. In fact, all speaking engenders a "putting at risk" of the speaker (LAVOIE; BOUCHARD, 2017[26]). Anticipating, preparing, and delivering the message when it is "ready" reduces stress, increases the feeling of comfort, and allows better management of emotions (HANIN et al., 2021[27]; STORDEUR; COLOGNESI, 2020[28]).

In sum, for all the reasons mentioned above, it seems to us that genre-based learning and the identification of effective practices for this learning, widely used for writing, constitute a relevant source of guidelines for the teaching–learning of oral language as well. That is the twofold objective of this contribution: (1) to list effective practices for teaching oral language through genres, based on the latest research findings and (2) to propose an instructional program that uses these practices. In short, what are effective practices for teaching and learning oral language through genres and how can they be integrated "in act" within an instructional program?

What are effective practices for teaching oral genres?

There is a vast literature on what is meant by effective teaching. Ko, Sammons and Bakkum (2014[29]) conducted a meta-analysis that allowed them to identify effective teaching practices across all disciplines. The authors added that these practices would have to be implemented in (almost) every lesson to be fully effective. They were: (1) know the content of the curriculum and strategies for teaching it; (2) be clear about the learning objectives and explain to students what is expected of them and the usefulness of the learning; (3) use existing instructional materials expertly; (4) know students and adapt interventions; (5) provide regular feedback to students; (6) involve students in the assessment process; (7) teach metacognitive strategies and (8) make links between courses and disciplines.

This examination of effective practices has continued within each discipline. For example, there have also been meta-analyses for language teaching. Thus, Koster et al. (2015[30]) and van Weijen and Janssen (2018) identified effective practices for teaching writing. They are related to the “global”' effective practices just listed: (1) goal setting; (2) teacher feedback; (3) text structure instruction; (4) peer assistance and (5) strategy instruction. These practices seem possible and relevant in the writing-rewriting process (COLOGNESI; NIWESE, 2020[31]).

As far as speaking is concerned, research in this field is still recent, so that there is not yet much work on effective practices for teaching speaking in the classroom. We identified two articles that mention such practices. The authors of the first article aimed to provide guidelines for secondary school teachers, while the second article focused on the primary level.

First, Wurth et al. (2019:2) analyzed the literature to deduce what they called "key elements of good quality L1-oral language teaching". To do so, they selected 13 articles, from which they identified five main aspects: (1) having a clear vision of goals and criteria before beginning oral language instruction; (2) analyzing and monitoring each student's language progress by setting aside time for reflection and analysis in L1 oral language lessons; (3) practicing self-assessment, peer assessment, and teacher assessment of oral products; (4) conducting observation and discussion time on filmed speakers serving as models; and (5) regular practice of a variety of speaking tasks.

Next, Colognesi and Hanin (2020[32]) conducted a study to try to identify effective practices in oral language instruction. For this purpose, they followed 16 pre-service teachers at the end of their training. Their participants were involved in a specific training module on the teaching of oral language. They developed sequences for teaching oral language through the oral genres (DOLZ; GAGNON, 2008[20]; HYLAND, 2003[23]), and then they experimented with them in the classes of pupils aged 7 to 12. These interventions lasted 12 hours in each class. The improvement of the pupils in oral language competence was measured with a pre- and post-test. In addition, written reflective analyses and oral interchanges between student teachers and trainers were analyzed. The triangulation of these data allowed the researchers to select a series of effective practices for teaching oral language through genres. These practices are: (1) planning oral language teaching in the class timetable; (2) establishing a climate conducive to listening and speaking; (3) supporting students with scaffolding; (4) enabling students to self-assess and implementing peer assessment.

Combining these proposals and the literature on effective practices, we have formulated a series of effective practices that are interesting to have as guidelines for teaching oral language, within the framework of teaching by genres. They are presented in Figure 1 and explained below.

Figure 1. FIGURE 1 – Effective practices for teaching oral language through genres. Source: produced by the authors.

Planning oral language teaching in the class timetable

Planning is one of the key tasks of teachers (KANG, 2017[33]). It is a reflective activity (DEPRIT; VAN NIEUWENHOVEN, 2018[34], 2021[34]) which, for oral language teaching, has at least two aspects.

The first aspect is to be convinced that teaching oral language is possible and useful. This is needed to be able to set aside time slots in the week's program to work on speaking.

The second aspect is to know the curriculum relating to the teaching of oral language. On the one hand, it is a question of having an idea of the genres that can be covered in the different years of schooling (COLOGNESI; HANIN, 2020[32]). On the other hand, it is necessary to have knowledge of the oral objectives that can be taught (DUMAIS, 2016[35]) and that are necessary for the communication situation related to the genre that is being worked on. This is the basis for the teacher’s decisions to develop teaching activities, and choose the appropriate method and material (GAGNÉ; BERGER, 2019[36]).

Establishing a climate conducive to listening and speaking

If the work environment is important for all activities that take place in the classroom, it is even more important when working on oral language. Indeed, when speaking, the person exposes himself (GAGNON; DE PIETRO; FISHER, 2017[6]). The speaker engages his body, his voice, his identity (ALRABADI, 2010[37]; GARCIA-DEBANC, 1999[38]). Consequently, it seems necessary to establish a safe working environment and rules, where the student will dare to express himself. Moreover, students can express themselves on video or in front of their peers before having to speak in front of the class or an unknown audience. This takes the stress out of the presentation. In addition, it is important to think about what audience members should do while a speaker is speaking and to assign a specific listening intention (COLOGNESI, 2021[39]).

Presenting the objectives and the communication situation

Regarding goals, in relation to writing, it has been shown that students who had a specific writing goal and sub-goals as they went through the writing process improved the quality of their writing (FERRETTI; MACARTHUR; DOWDY, 2000[40]; GRAHAM et al., 2014[41]). We argue that the same is true for oral language.

Thus, at the beginning of work on oral communication skills, it is necessary to give the pupils objectives for speaking. It is also necessary to explain to them what they have to achieve. This is so that they can understand the communication situation they are in. It is essential that students know why they are producing this message, for whom, what it will be used for, and so forth. Working through genres naturally leads to engaging students in real communication projects, as recommended by the Council of Europe (2001[21]).

This goal-setting step at the beginning of the work as well as in the intermediate phases can take two different forms (KOSTER et al., 2015[30]). The teacher can actually announce to the students the expected goals in terms of the product, for example, the overall length of the text, the expected effects, and so forth. In addition, the teacher can also announce objectives in terms of the process. That is, he can specify what learning or working strategies are expected to be acquired.

Moreover, it is now commonly accepted that a student is motivated to engage in a task if it is meaningful to him or her, but also if he or she believes in his or her chances of success (BOURGEOIS, 2011[42]; ECCLES; WIEGFIELD, 2002[43]). Consequently, when presenting the objectives, it seems necessary also to mention to the pupils the various supports that will be available to help them to achieve the stated objectives.

Enabling students to re-oralize

Inspired by the practice of rewriting, namely, "any operation which returns to what has already been written" (GRÉSILLON, 1994, p. 245[44]), re-oralization (COLOGNESI; DOLZ, 2017, p. 188[8]) returns to what has already been said aloud. The intention is to allow the speaker to improve his spoken product, as many times as necessary, before delivering it to the audience for whom it is intended. This of course depends on the genre that is to be produced. In order to limit stress, the re-oralizations could also be carried out in front of an audience of progressive size: the camera or one or two peers at the beginning, a subgroup of spectators afterwards, and the whole audience at the end.

In addition, from one oral rehearsal to the next, the speaker does not have to repeat the same thing. It is about having the challenge of improving from one time to the next. These challenges may come from teacher-generated scaffolding, or from feedback received either from the teacher or from peers. They can also be determined by the speaker himself. In this way, re-oralization allows the possibility of development for and by the student. It is also a way for the teacher to ensure formative co-assessment of oral language competence.

The ephemeral aspect of oral language can make its evaluation subjective (GARCIA-DEBANC, 1999[38]). This is why it is useful to think about ways to preserve students' oral performances. Digital tools can provide a solution for this. Stordeur and Colognesi's (2020[28]) study showed that when students can replay one or more versions of a presentation by recording themselves, they experience positive emotions such as being happy, relieved, proud, relaxed or feeling good.

It should be noted that, depending on the genre, the re-oralizations can be prepared for. They can be prepared for in writing, as a tool for the elaboration of oral communication (CELLIER; DREYFUS, 2002[45]; DOLZ; GAGNON, 2008[20]).

Helping students through scaffolding: deepening, support and feedback

Scaffolding is what the teacher provides to ensure the student's learning, the actions undertaken to allow the student to accomplish alone a task that he did not know how to accomplish independently at the beginning (BRUNER, 1983[46], 1996[47]). Bucheton (2009[48]) has identified three types of scaffolding functions.

The first function of scaffolding is deepening. It is a matter of the teacher bringing the students to mastery of a specific aspect that they do not yet know and that they need. Thus, for the oral genre being worked on, the teacher can intervene with regard to one or more aspects relating to action, discourse or linguistic-discourse skills (DOLZ; PASQUIER; BRONCKART, 1993[49]).

Considering that action skills are addressed when the task is presented to the student, one of the first deepening scaffolds should be focused on the structure of the message to be produced, that is, on students’ discursive abilities (DOLZ; PASQUIER; BRONCKART, 1993[49]). On this point, Allal (2018) has shown that learning by observing models can contribute significantly to students' progress. This was, in fact, an intervention recommended by Bruner (1996[47]). The issue is to help students discover the regularities of the genre to be produced, its predictable format (DOLZ; GAGNON; VUILLET, 2011[50]).

Dolz et al. (2001[51]) agreed that observation and analysis of existing texts enables the characteristics of the genre to be identified. This is accomplished through the use of models chosen for their representativeness. Colognesi and Lucchini (2018[52]) have shown that this activity of observation of models should be done from observation of real models of confirmed authors, but not only from this. Otherwise, the risk is to make students think that the production goals are too high. Wurth et al. (2019, p. 19[53]) further explained that "these examples should give a varied view on speaking in public, showing students 'different discursive conditions according to categories such as age, race, class, gender and so on’ (Baxter, 2002, p. 94)." The purpose of the model observation and analysis activity is to highlight the similarities of the models, but also the differences. This is to identify the essential characteristics of the genre, but also the possible options. The challenge is to allow speakers to conform to the structure of the message to be produced while retaining creativity and personal agency (COLOGNESI; LUCCHINI, 2018[52]).

Other scaffolding can also be organized according to the specificities of the genre to be produced, related to linguistic-discursive abilities (DOLZ; PASQUIER; BRONCKART, 1993[49]). Such scaffolds can highlight lexical-semantic, morphological, syntactic, paraverbal, non-verbal, or material oral language objectives (DUMAIS, 2016[35]).

The second function of scaffolding is support. This consists of being able to adapt interventions according to the diversity of the students and their needs (ALLAL, 2020[54]; COLOGNESI; GOUIN, 2020[55]), to enable them to succeed in the task (LERY SANTOS; BONNEFON; TRICOT, 2020[56]). In fact, it has been shown that teacher support and behavior in relation to student success are major determinants of student academic success (Maulana et al., 2017[57]). In its supportive function, scaffolding can be offered either to a subgroup of students who have the same need, or more individually. For example, the teacher could, after an initial discussion, identify each student’s most fragile non-verbal skills and provide them with specific support.

The third function of scaffolding is control. The teacher ensures that the students' answers are correct and validates them. Feedback is therefore the key. It has been identified as one of the most powerful levers for learning (DIETRICHSON et al., 2017[58]; HATTIE; TIMPERLEY, 2007[59]). Yet, giving feedback about oral performance can present a set of challenges. First, it is complex to identify the components of speaking within a complete message and to evaluate each component in a single oral performance (LAFONTAINE; PRÉFONTAINE, 2007[60]). Second, oral language is ephemeral, which requires keeping track of it (DUMAIS, 2010[61]; GARCIA-DEBANC, 1999[38]). Third, take into account objective and (inter)subjective dimensions in the evaluation. They are related to the commitment of the speaker. But also to the commitment of the evaluator in the evaluation process (ALRABADI, 2010[37]; GARCIA-DEBANC, 1999[38]; LAVOIE; BOUCHARD, 2017[26]).

In order to deal with this complexity linked to the evaluation of oral language, one practice is to use a criterion-based grid. However, this raises an issue around which multiple questions are focused: who evaluates, what, how, why, on the basis of what criteria and with what indicators of progress? How best to include, consider and integrate all of these parameters in a grid designed to evaluate a student's oral performance is a constant question for teachers, and researchers as well (WIERTZ et al., 2020[1]).

Making time for peer support

Peer assessment involves two or more students in a symmetrical relationship who evaluate their respective learning, progress and/or difficulties (ALLAL, 1999[62], 2020; GIELEN, et al., 2010[63]). It adopts a formative perspective. Regulation through evaluation is no longer considered as just a particular event in learning, but as an integral part of it (ALLAL; MOTTIER LOPEZ, 2005[64]). It has been shown that in many respects, peer assessment can substitute for or even surpass teacher assessment (DOUBLE; MCGRANE; HOPFENBECK 2020[65]). In language instruction, peer assistance is when "students work together in pairs or small groups, and help each other plan, write, and/or revise their texts" (van WEIJEN; JANSSEN, 2018, p. 13[66]).

As mentioned above, assessing speaking is not a simple task for the teacher. This is also the case for students. Established criteria can serve as a guide for them to evaluate the performance of others (DUNBAR; BROOKS; KUBICKA-MILLER, 2006[67]; WIERTZ et al., 2020[1]). In their study, Leenknecht and Prins (2018) investigated whether elementary school students' involvement in setting assessment criteria and standards resulted in better peer assessment and feedback style. The results of the study showed that it did. In particular, students who discussed the criteria and standards before providing feedback on the brochures about their classmates' climate gave more positive and effective feedback than those who did not.

Students often have difficulty using a complete criteria grid: they need to be trained to do so for the feedback to be effective (LAVEAULT; MILES, 2008[68]). Otherwise, the use of a grid has no influence on the effectiveness of peer assessment (DOUBLE; MCGRANE; HOPFENBECK, 2020[65]). Thus, it seems that choosing the focus of the feedback with students, or having them select priorities for the speaker, could be an interesting way to support effective peer feedback.

There is also the question of which modalities are most effective for peers to use in giving feedback to others as part of an oral performance evaluation. In their study, Colognesi et al. (2020b[69]) compared two modalities for students to use in giving feedback on their peers' oral performances: written or oral with discussion. While student performance improved significantly for both modalities, students who received negotiated oral feedback received more guidance and made more progress. This is because in this situation students have to agree and thus co-construct their judgment (WEGMULLER; ALLAL, 1997[70]). They can then discuss it or present it to the speaker with a specific expectation regarding the effect that will be produced by what they say (TREMBLAY; TURGEON, 2019[71]).

Moreover, by providing feedback to others, students will take ownership of the goals set by the teacher (ALLAL; MOTTIER LOPEZ, 2005[64]; HATTIE; TIMPERLEY, 2007[59]). It has been shown that students use feedback from others to improve their products. But, in addition, they also use what they have recommended to others to improve their own products (COLOGNESI; DESCHEPPER, 2018[72]; DUMAIS, 2010[61]). Thus, there is a double gain from peer feedback.

Providing moments of reflection for the speaker (metacognition and self-reflection)

Vosniadou et al. (2021) explained that all theories of metacognition agree that metacognition in the context of learning and academic performance refers to individuals’ ability to improve their learning and academic performance through the use of strategies to plan, manage, and control their learning.

Thus, the teacher can support students' metacognition at three points: before, during, and after the tasks; in this case, the oral performance tasks. This is done by activating strategies for orientation, planning, monitoring, regulation, and evaluation of the product and the process (COLOGNESI et al., 2020b; EFKLIDES, 2008; VEENMAN, 2012). It is then possible to invite students to verbalize their process, make judgments about their learning, or even take a look at how confident they feel about the tasks (DOUBLE; BIRNEY, 2019).

This time spent in working on strategies, and the discussions that go with it, allows for the identification of winning strategies (COLOGNESI, 2021). It is also an opportunity to take into account what the speaker thinks and feels when confronted with delivering an oral message in front of others.

Reflective speaking, considered as a third use of speaking in class, could support the time spent learning how to speak well. The ability to "say what one has done in order to speak" constitutes an interesting way to work on speaking. It generates a double gain. It allows one to reflect on one's oral practice and to equip oneself with a language in which to express it.