Learner Observation of, and
Reflection on, Spoken
Discourse: An Approach for
Teaching Academic Speaking
Helen Basturkmen
L
anguage teaching courses often target speaking skills
and aim to improve students ability to interact orally
in a range of situations. One aspect of teaching
speaking is creating practice tasks. This aspect has been
well served by the current range of communicative activi-
ties, such as role-play, simulations, and information and
opinion gap tasks. Another aspect of teaching speaking is
raising students awareness of the features of spoken
language. Methodological options here have been more
limited. However, one option is for teachers to design tasks
that put students in the position of discourse analysts,
observing language use in recordings and transcripts, and
also reflecting on their own use of language. This option
can be used as a way to reveal to learners features of spoken
language that they may be partially or completely unaware
of and that go unnoticed unless attention is directly drawn
to them.
Introduction
There are a number of ways the features of spoken lan-
guage in academic contexts are different from speaking in
more informal situations, such as in conversational ex-
changes with friends and family. In conversational ex-
changes, speakers are often concerned with maintaining
social relationships, and talk tends to be limited to quite
short turns. Exchanges in academic situations have more
emphasis on the effective exchange of information. Turns
may be longer and involve some prior organization of
content and use of linguistic devices to signal either the
organization or type of information that will be given.
Exchanges can be complex and involve interaction that
extends beyond simple question-response routines. Much
academic speaking takes place in public arenas, such as
lectures and seminars, in which what the speaker says is
heard not only by the person being addressed directly but
also by other audience participants. In such circumstances,
language tends to be used in subtle and indirect ways.
Because language use in academic contexts is complex
and indirect, its features may not be transparent to learners.
The nature of spoken language in academic contexts
26 TESOL JOURNAL
presents particular difficulties for nonnative speakers. For
example, in a study of speaking needs at U.S. universities,
Ferris (1998) found that only 8% of the students surveyed
reported that they never experienced difficulty with what
might superficially appear to be the simple task of asking
questions in class. But how can ESOL programs help
nonnative speakers become more aware of the features of
academic spoken language? The intricate uses of such
language are unlikely to be noticed by listening alone or by
simple exposure to spoken discourse.
This article describes the approach used in the aca-
demic speaking course at the University of Auckland, in
New Zealand. This course targets high intermediate- and
advanced-level, non-English-speaking students already
enrolled in the University who are pursuing a range of
academic degree subjects (e.g., information technology,
commerce, Asian studies). The students come from a
number of different countries, such as China, Japan,
Sweden, and Russia. Some have been residents of New
Zealand for a few months; others have been residents for a
number of years and have completed part of their second-
ary school education in the country.
The general aim of the course is to help students
develop their ability to participate actively in talks and
discussions for academic study. We work toward this in two
ways. First, we organize the syllabus around three speaking
production projects:
1. a short talk defining two related key terms from
the students own subject area
2. an oral report of a survey study carried out by
students working in pairs
3. an oral review of a recent technical innovation
Second, we use learners as observers of discourse tasks.
These tasks aim to draw students attention to features of
language use in the texts of spoken discourse (e.g., audio/
video recordings or transcripts). In this way, students can
become more aware of how language is used in academic
events, such as question-answer sessions, tutorials, and
small-group discussions.
This article is concerned with the second aspect of the
VOL. 11 NO. 2
course outlined above. In particular, I describe the learners-
as-observers-of-discourse approach, provide samples of
classroom tasks based on this approach, and summarize the
rationale for the approach. I also include suggested re-
sources for materials developers.
A Learners-as-Observers-of-
Discourse Approach
Research into pragmatic aspects of L2 learners speaking
has been limited, but the available evidence indicates that
pragmatic awareness does not develop on its own (Tanaka,
1997). Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989) submit
that even fairly advanced language learners communica-
tive acts regularly contain pragmatic errors, or deficits, in
that they fail to convey or comprehend the intended
illocutionary force or politeness value (p. 10). Therefore,
there is a need for L2 instruction to focus on spoken
language, and researchers in this area generally point out
the positive impact of instruction aimed at raising learners
pragmatic awareness (Kasper, 1997).
But how are learners to become more pragmatically
aware? One approach is instruction based on learners
themselves acting as observers of spoken discourse and
analyzing samples of language use. This approach utilizes
the concept of text-based instruction as proposed by Feez
(1998). Text-based instruction involves using authentic
texts (e.g., recordings and transcripts of naturally occurring
speaking events that were not originally devised for the
purposes of language teaching) to present and describe
language use. The advantages of this for teaching academic
speaking are that authentic texts provide a realistic model
of language use as well as a pedagogic tool to raise learners
awareness of language features. In short, texts offer a way
of opening up and revealing features of academic speaking
and interaction to learners. The learners-as-observers-of-
discourse approach is advocated by Riggenbach (1990),
who argues the need for pedagogy to develop learners
ability to investigate and make discoveries about naturally
occurring discourse. The approach is also in line with
instructional activities presented in Clennell (1999),
Riggenbach (1994), and Tanaka (1997). In the academic
speaking course at my university, we aim to illustrate
features of language use in academic contexts by recording
speaking in situations relevant to learners needs (using a
video or audiocassette recorder and microphone) and
developing materials to exploit these recordings. For
example, recordings of students in small-group discussions
of case study scenarios in the Business School were col-
lected and used in the English for academic purposes
(EAP) classroom to explore how the students of business
used language for agreeing and disagreeing with each other.
Research into the effects of instruction based on
learners observing discourse is sparse. However, one study
concerned with this was conducted by Crandall (1999),
who evaluated a set of instructional materials targeting the
pragmatic acts of requesting and disagreeingand based
VOL. 11 NO. 2
on learners observations of a discourse approachfollow-
ing their use in an EAP course. The materials involved
learners in analyzing texts of authentic spoken discourse
(collected from university environments, such as meetings
between students and faculty) and their own spoken
production in role-play scenarios enacted in the L2 class-
room. The results showed that the learners enjoyed the
experience of analyzing the spoken data, and that following
classroom instruction, the learners perceptions of the acts
more closely matched those of native speakers than they did
prior to instruction.
Types of Tasks Used in the Learners-
as-Observers-of-Discourse Approach
This section illustrates the approach taken in the academic
speaking course by presenting two sample pieces of material
and outlining two other instructional activities. The first
piece of material involves a task in which the teacher leads
students in observing the spoken discourse of expert
English speakers. Research has indicated that language
learners may not wish to behave pragmatically just like
native speakers of the target language (Hinkel, 1996);
however, by helping learners to explore native-like speaker
discourse, teachers can help them acquire what Thomas
(1983) has described as the knowledge to make an in-
formed choice and . . . freedom to flout pragmatic conven-
tions (p. 110). The second piece of material involves a task
in which students record, observe, and reflect on their own
speaking and interaction.
Observing Expert Speakers
Figure 1 shows instructional material aiming to raise
learners awareness of language use and conversational
strategies in discussion questions following a presentation.
This task focuses on the language used for asking for
clarification, for agreeing, and for disagreeing.
Students listen to a recorded presentation followed by a
postpresentation discussion. When listening to the discus-
sion section, students first identify the function of turns at
talk before the teacher leads a discussion to explicate some
of the conversational strategies and features involved. Figure
2 illustrates a teacher-guided analysis of part of the text.
Following the class, a further task is set that requires
students to collect language data from their content classes
over the week (Figure 3). The data are then pooled in the
next EAP class to compile a list of ways speakers introduce
topics derived from students observations of language use
in their own content classes.
Experience in using these noticing tasks indicates that
explicit, overt language use is easier for students to notice
and record than indirect language use. However, it is the
latter that is more problematic for L2 learners. For example,
in regard to the use of hedges (devices that function to
soften or modify claims), we have found that the students
notes tend to contain discrete markers of hedging, such as
TESOL JOURNAL 27
 Strategies in Questioning: Language Used in Agreeing,
Disagreeing, and Clarification Requests
Step 1: Listen to an audio recording of a short talk. What is the topic?
Step 2: Discuss. What is meant by the word conflict? Is it good to have conflict in the workplace?
Step 3: Listen to the talk a second time and make notes. What two views on the role of conflict in the workplace does
the presenter introduce and describe?
View 1
View 2
Step 4: Listen to the questions/comments following the talk. Label them as A (agreeing), D (disagreeing), or NS (not
sure).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Now read the transcribed turns and check your labels.
Step 5: With a tutor, read through the turns and discuss the strategies and the language used.
Directions
Study the transcripts of questions in the discussion following the talk. What strategies do the students use? Underline the
language strategies used by the speakers to show agreement, disagreement, or a request for clarification.
Student A Excerpt
I was interested in what you said about managers trying to stimulate conflict in your organization. Wouldnt you say
that this could be very harmful except in a few rather limited circumstances? It seems to me from my experience that
few managers would handle this well enough for it to lead to any positive outcome.
Student B Excerpt
Can I ask about the traditional view you were talking about earlier? You said that it was the main view when you first
went into management. Why has it been replaced? You said it has changed, but you didnt really explain why.
(Excerpts continue.)

Figure 1. Sample material for teaching postpresentation discussion question strategies.

maybe and approximately, rather than chunks of indirect
language use functioning to modify claims in more indirect
ways, such as It may be the case that and It is possible that.
Students Observing Their Own Speaking
In addition to tasks in which learners observe the spoken
discourse of expert speakers, students also engage in tasks
in which they observe their own speaking. The aim of this
is for students to become more aware of their own lan-
guage needs. Figure 4 shows this type of task. It is one of
the tasks used in the second speaking project in the course,
the survey study. This project involves students working in
pairs to devise a research question, develop an interview
protocol, collect data, analyze the data, and present their
findings to the class. During the development of the
interview protocol stage, the task Trying Out Your
Interview Protocol is used with the aim of getting the
learners to reflect on their own language use and to con-
sider how they may use language more effectively to elicit
the information they are seeking.
Often, students experience considerable difficulty in
making the question items from their interview protocols
understood. The task provides opportunities for students to
get positive or negative evidence about the comprehensibil-
ity of their speaking. If students do not get the response
they want, they realize the need to reformulate their
output. The notes of the observer and the recording of the

28 TESOL JOURNAL VOL. 11 NO. 2


Student A Excerpt
I was interested in what you said about managers
trying to stimulate conflict in your organization.
Wouldnt you say that this could be very harmful
except in a few rather limited circumstances? It
seems to me from my experience that few managers
would handle this well enough for it to lead to any
positive outcome.
Teacher Prompts for Analysis and Discussion
How many things is this speaker trying to do?
How many parts are there?
There are three parts.
The first part is: I was interested in what you said
about managers trying to stimulate conflict in your
organization.
This signals the topic the speaker wants to talk
about.
In discussion, speakers may need to signal the
topic they are interested in.
There are a number of ways speakers do this
and this illustrates one way.
How else do speakers signal topics if they are
backtracking to a prior topic?
The second part is: Wouldnt you say that this could
be very harmful except in a few rather limited
circumstances?
This is indirect disagreement.
Speakers sometimes do not disagree directly.
The speaker invites the hearer to agree with a
point of view opposing the hearers point of
view. The speaker here uses a negative
question to make a disagreement.
Why does the speaker not simply say I
disagree with you because I think . . .?
Do you have this strategy in your own culture/
language?
The third part is: It seems to me from my experience
that few managers would handle this well enough for
it to lead to any positive outcome.
How is this turn organized and why does the
speaker put his/her own opinion at the end?
How does the speaker hedge his/her opinion?
Why does he/she not say I think . . .?
Why do speakers in academic contexts
sometimes hedge their opinions?
Figure 2. Example of a teacher-guided analysis of conver-
sational strategies and features.
trial interviews allow the students to work as discourse
analysts and locate where and why there were communica-
tion breakdowns or difficulties. In this way, students
eventually come up with comprehensible question items
through a process of reformulating items and reviewing the
recording made, the notes of the observer, and the com-
ments of the respondents.
VOL. 11 NO. 2
In your academic content lectures this week, listen for
how students make contributions to postlecture
question time. Write some of the ways they signal the
topic they are interested in and any ways they hedge
their opinion on the topic. Bring your notes to next
weeks class for review.
Figure 3. Example of a task involving students in collecting
spoken data.
Students engage in two other types of tasks in the
course that are based on learners observing and reflecting
on the spoken discourse.
1. In order for learners to become more aware of
how they interact in small-group discussions, they
participate in discussion tasks in which one group
member acts as observer and records how the
others in the group interact.
For example, a discussion topic, such as Examinations are
the best way to assess learning, is set. Individually, stu-
dents write down their ideas, and then groups of four or
five discuss their ideas. One student sits apart from the
group and makes a record of the interaction (e.g., how
many times each member of the discussion group asks a
question or makes a comment, or who speaks to whom).
After the discussion, the observer shows the record to the
Trying Out Your
Interview Protocol
In this session, practice your interview protocol on
others in the class. Make a recording of your
interviews.
One of you asks the question items. The other
observes and makes notes about any difficulties.
You may need to elaborate on the actual question
items you have prepared.
If your respondent does not understand the question,
rephrase it and think how you can clarify it for the
final version.
The aim is to practice your protocol and get
feedback from others in the class about how easy or
difficult it is to understand the interview items.
Help your peers by giving them good feedback and
by explaining how you understood the question
items.
When you have finished, listen again to your
recording. How did you ask the questions and how
could you improve on them? Revise any questions
you need to.
Figure 4. Task for trying out interview protocols.
TESOL JOURNAL 29
group. Together the students analyze the data and identify
patterns. For example, students may notice that they rarely
ask questions and mostly make evaluative comments, or
that they tend to speak to those sitting across from them
rather than to those sitting next to them.
2. In order for students to explore their own
language use in relation to that of more expert
speakers, they role-play and record a situation
and then compare the recording to a recording/
transcript of a similar situation outside the
language classroom.
For example, students role-play a scenario, such as request-
ing an extension to hand in an assignment from a faculty
member. They then compare their own language use and
strategies with those of more native-like speakers using data
collected from faculty office hours.
Conclusion
A key aim of the approach to teaching academic speaking
described above is to reveal the features of academic spoken
language use to students using a text-based methodology. If
students are to learn about the features of naturally occur-
ring spoken discourse, they need to observe and reflect on
language use. Transcripts of spoken interaction provide a
means for observation and reflection. By listening alone,
the more subtle and intricate features of language use (e.g.,
indirect pragmatic acts, hedging, patterns of interaction in
complex exchanges, and the sequential organization of long
turns) can go unnoticed.
For students to notice these features, teachers need to
provide them with opportunities to record their own
speaking and review recordings and transcriptions of
spoken discourse of others to see for themselves how
language and interaction work. Discourse analysts learn
about talk by observing talk. Students can learn about
language similarly. It is particularly important for more
advanced learners to become more aware of sophisticated
language use and interactive strategies. If we help learners
become observers of spoken discourse in our ESOL lessons,
they may transfer this approach to their independent
language learning, and the skills they learn in becoming
discourse analysts in the language teaching classroom can
be used outside the classroom and in their future learning
of language.
This article has described ways teachers can organize
materials and instructional activities around recordings of
naturally occurring talk. Alternatively, they can apply the
30 TESOL JOURNAL
approach by using published texts, such as the corpora of
spoken English that are now becoming available. For
example, the Wellington Corpus of New Zealand Spoken
English (Holmes, Vine, & Johnson, 1998) contains texts of
monologic and interactive talk. It is available on CD-
ROM, which allows the teacher or student to view the
texts on a computer monitor. The texts can also be printed
for classroom study of selected language features.
References
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Clennell, C. (1999). Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken
discourse skills with EAP classes. English Language Teaching
Journal, 53(2), 8391.
Crandall, E. (1999). Developing and evaluating pragmatics-focused
materials. Unpublished masters thesis, University of
Auckland, New Zealand.
Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia: Macquarie University, National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research.
Ferris, D. (1998). Students views of academic aural/oral skills: A
comparative needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 289318.
Hinkel, E. (1996). When in Rome: Evaluation of L2
pragmalinguistic behaviours. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1),
5170.
Holmes, J., Vine, B., & Johnson, G. (1998). The Wellington
corpus of spoken New Zealand English. Wellington, New
Zealand: School of Linguistics and Applied Language
Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught?
Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Ma\noa, Second Language
Teaching and Curriculum Centre. Retrieved May 20, 2002,
from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/nw06/default.html
Riggenbach, H. (1990). Discourse analysis and spoken language
instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 152
163.
Riggenbach, H. (1994). Students as language researchers. In K.
M. Bailey & L. Savage (Eds.), New ways in teaching speaking
(pp. 2122). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Tanaka, K. (1997). Developing pragmatic competence: A
learners-as-researchers approach. TESOL Journal, 6(3), 14
18.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied
Linguistics, 4(2), 91112.
Author
Helen Basturkmen teaches in the academic speaking program and
offers other courses in discourse analysis and materials development
for teachers at Auckland University, in New Zealand.
VOL. 11 NO. 2