1

“Este, bueno, repite por favor…”: the use of communication strategies in Spanish language classroom

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effect of communication strategies (CSs) instructions used by

English speakers, learners of Spanish at a low intermediate level during a 13-weeks course. Oral

data from one classroom (n = 20) received explicit instruction of CSs, as part of the regular

instructional material; whereas, participants in the other classroom, taught by the same instructor,

did not receive this specific information on CSs, but otherwise had the same syllabus and course

material than the other classroom. The CSs in the experimental classroom consisted in 4 CSs

(Analytical framework, adapted from (Dörnyei and Scott 173-210) L1 or L2 based strategies,

and the strategic marker “filled pauses” (Ghout-Khenoune 770-779). Three oral assignments

were administered: a pre-test, and two post-tests: mid and a final test. For the total frequency of

each CS, the total of number of calculated. The frequency and percentages for the descriptive

statistics was presented per every CS in a table form. The pre-tests showed not significant

difference in the use of the CSs between the two groups. The results after the treatment, showed

an effect of the explicit teaching of the CSs, as the experimental group used significantly higher

number of CSs resources, when solving communicative issues. The study also reported that task

type had a significant effect on the number and type of CSs produced by the learners. This

phenomenon can be also explained in terms of task type and time constraints. The differences

observed in both groups, can be attributed to the CS explicit instruction, while having

pedagogical implications for language teachers.

1. Introduction

Second language learners repeatedly experience linguistic breakdown when expressing an idea

or concept in their second language (L2). And when these deficits occur in naturalistic speech,

they must resort to an array of strategies in order to make themselves understood. For example,

in a real-world situation when asking for directions in a Spanish-speaking country, the language

learner may hear “siga derecho” o “a dos cuadras” in order to find a place. The learner can

2

resort to a clarification request such as “no entendí, puedes repetir por favor”. Unlike a

naturalistic setting, however, which often compels second language learners to employ

communication strategies, such as paraphrasing or circumlocution, the classroom context is

different as it may not be necessarily trigger or motivate the use of these strategies. In the present

study, we explore both the use and benefits of these strategies among L2 learners of Spanish.

A communicative strategy (CS) is viewed as a conscious and intentional attempt to covey

meaning in a face-to-face situation with linguistic problems in the target language (Alibakhshi

and Padiz 941-947; Dönryei, 1995; Maldonado 23-51; (Sukirlan 2033; Moattarian 2349;

Alibakhshi and Padiz 941-947; Kennedy and Trofimovich 494-512; Maldonado 23-51). For

example, it has been observed that “verbal and non-verbal [CSs] may be implemented to

compensate for breakdowns in (Kennedy and Trofimovich 494-512); communication due to

performance variables or to insufficient competence” (Tavakoli, Dastjerdi, and Esteki ; Ghout-

Khenoune 770-779).

The current study will contribute to the much-needed understanding on CSs in L2

language classrooms. It will focus specifically on the 4CSs (clarification request, comprehension

questions, paraphrasing/circumlocution, self-repair) following (Dörnyei and Scott 173-210)

Taxonomy and the teaching of a strategic marker “filled pauses” investigated in (Ghout-

Khenoune 770-779) to help the students enhance oral communication across different cultural

theme activities during the semester.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Taxonomies of Communicative Strategies and Definitions

3

Historically, the concept of communicative strategies was introduced by (Selinker 209-

232) in his article about leaners’ inter-linguistic errors. Later, other studies elaborated a

systematic analysis of CS (Tarone ; Váradi 59; Faerch ; Sukirlan 2033) and the teaching of CSs

(Alibakhshi and Padiz 941-947). Early empirical studies have carried out great deal of

investigation in Second Language Acquisition (SLA), and much research has focused on CS

instruction and practices (Kennedy and Trofimovich 494-512; Razmjou and Ghazi ; Tavakoli,

Dastjerdi, and Esteki ). From the foreign language perspective, scholars have investigated the

benefits of explicitly teaching CSs in language classroom (Alibakhshi and Padiz 941-947;

Mirsane and Khabiri 399-407; Sukirlan 2033); although, this phenomenon remains largely

unexamined in Spanish as second/foreign language classrooms.

Investigations in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), has emphasized on the

pedagogy and development of CSs (Tarone ; Tarone 417-428; Savignon ; Rabab’ah 625-651).

The instructions of these strategies have been subject of controversial among the researchers.

The opponents states that the second language learner (L2) does not necessarily have to develop

a special strategy in L2 (Poulisse 77-87); instead, they can use their L1 strategic competence “…

what one must teach to the learners of a language is not strategy, but language” (Bialystok 635-

648). Or, “…teach the learner more language, and let the strategies look after themselves.”

(Kasper and Kellerman ).

On the contrary, those in favor argues that the CSs teaching provide a growth for

development on strategic competence (Tarone 417-428; Dörnyei 55-85; Rabab’ah 625-651;

Maldonado 23-51; Faerch ; Faerch and Kasper 45-63). These studies suggest CSs as the central

function when negotiating of meaning through an array of communication visual games and oral

speech in form of monologue; and as well as, oral-video tape analysis, among other activities,

4

helping increase awareness on the learner’s own speech production. Aligned with this, (Mirsane

and Khabiri 399-407) suggests not only to emphasize the CSs teaching to language learners, but

also highlights the recommendations made by early work on CSs by (Faerch and Kasper 45-63).

It states that by teaching CSs explicitly, language users become aware of their implicit

knowledge of CS, in which the subject learns how to use CS in both formal and informal

contexts.

Many researchers have conducted scholarly work supporting the efficiency of teaching

CSs, particularly in English as a second or foreign language classrooms at the college level

(FAERCH and Kasper 111; Maleki ; Dörnyei 55-85). The observations made, reported on the

lack of proficiency in many learners, which oftentimes are the main reason why the use of and

value of CSs are underestimated. (Dörnyei 55-85) is probably one of the strongest advocates in

the use of explicitly teaching CSs. He maintained that by teaching CSs, the learners will possess

a wider spectrum of resources, while achieving self-confidence. The current study will follow his

analytical framework.

2.2 Communicative Strategies Used and Task Type

The teachability of CS was investigated by (Rabab’ah 625-651) on EFL learner’s

strategic competence and oral communicative ability. During 14-week English course, 80

learners were divided into 2 groups, one (n = 44) received the CSs training program and the

control group (n = 36) received the normal communicative course instruction. A pre and post

IELTS (The International English Language Testing System) test were administered to find out

the effect of CSs explicit instruction, as well as language proficiency. The results indicated that

the experimental group outperformed the control group in their IELTS scores. In the post test,

the experimental group used many more CSs when communicating in EFL context and the

5

speaking test indicated that the experimental group effectively used more achievement strategies

(e.g., circumlocution and self-repair), and interactional strategies (e.g., clarification, confirmation

request, asking for repetition, guessing and appeal for help), hence, to maintain the flow of

conversation.

Results from previous studies (Aliweh) lend support to this view. This study investigated

short and long-term effect of communicative strategy instruction in EFL used by Egyptian

College learners of English, speaking proficiency. It found that the experimental group used the

strategies taught to handle communication issues, as communication breakdown due to a gap of

linguistic knowledge. The study concluded that raising awareness of CSs among language

learners of low and high proficiencies may help to improve the flow of communication.

Similarly results can be found in (Alibakhshi and Padiz 941-947). It investigated the

effect of explicitly teaching CSs to Iranian language learners of English in storytelling and

picture description tasks. The ten-weeks treatment on CSs was collected through a series of oral

data in the experimental group by means of group discussions, storytelling and three oral

production tests, including a picture description. General findings showed improvement in the

use of number of CS, indicating a positive impact employed by the experimental group oral

performance, compared to the control. It reported significance difference in the use of almost all

CSs, seven out of nine CSs administered, (e.g., avoidance, approximation, circumlocution), in

the experimental compared to the control group. The effect on the use of CS was stable even

after a long interval after treatment.

Additionally, (Sukirlan 2033) investigated the effects of teaching CSs (e.g.,

approximation, circumlocution) on the types of CSs employed by 23 students at intermediate

level speaking class in a pretest and posttest design. The study found that the explicit teaching of

6

CSs promoted students’ communicative skills through an increase in the level of speech

comprehensibility. The posttest shows a significant increment in the use of the CSs compared

with the pretest (e.g., approximation used 13 times vs. 5 times; circumlocution 290 times vs. 97

times, respectively); and a decrease of frequency use of CSs (e.g., code-switching, avoidance,

appeal for assistance). The findings can be explained in terms of CSs explicit instruction. Not

only helped increase the use of CSs , but also helped the learners gained confidence when

expressing their thoughts and ideas in face-to-face conversation.

Considering the supporting review, in comparison to the study of CSs in English as a

Second or Foreign Language contexts, scant research has been conducted in Spanish language

classrooms. To my knowledge, few studies have investigated this phenomenon in Spanish as a

Second or Foreign Language classrooms (Maldonado 23-51; Maldonado 105). In her study, she

investigated the effects of Spanish L2 learner’s proficiency on CSs face-to-face, two types of

interaction: L2 learners of Spanish with Native speakers of Spanish (NSS), and two groups of L2

learners of Spanish. Data were collected via two jigsaw activities and a free-conversation task,

while analyzed following (Dörnyei and Kormos 349-385). The results of the study, reported the

CSs most frequently used within CSs was response-repeat. Additional evidenced on the CSs

most used was the help-correction provided by the NS when replying in a positive manner.

In the current study, four types of tasks were administered: a brief self-description task,

and two post-tests discussion tasks, ECA and Oral Exam. All tasks, pre-test (“Appendix A”) and

posttests were activities part of the Spanish course. The spontaneous tasks were adopted due to

their closeness to real conversation, as it takes the form of an exchanged interaction, on various

real-life themes. These forms of discussions allow the students to opportunity to practice and

7

opportunity for language use like expressing comparisons and opinions, and interlocutor

position.

3. Research Aims

Notably, while the explicit instruction on CSs has been examined in several EFL/ESL

contexts (Ghout-Khenoune 770-779; Alibakhshi and Padiz 941-947; Bialystok and Fröhlich 3-

30; Maleki ; Mirsane and Khabiri 399-407; Tavakoli, Dastjerdi, and Esteki ; Wang, Lai, and

Leslie 701-714), this phenomenon remains largely unexamined in Spanish in second foreign

language classroom. In order to contribute to the antecedent work on the benefit of explicit

instruction on CSs, this study will focus specifically on the explicit teaching of the 5 CSs

(clarification request, comprehension questions, paraphrasing/circumlocution, self-repair

(“Appendix B”) to found out the benefits on the English speakers, learners of Spanish strategies

used. This paper is organized as follows: section 1, provides an introduction; section 2, review of

previous literature on classroom instruction of CSs. Section 3. describes research aims. Section 4

presents the research questions; section 5 presents methodology; and finally, section 6, discusses

main findings and conclusions.

4. Research Questions

The present study investigates the effect of communication strategies, explicit instructions on

learners of Spanish at a low intermediate level. The changes will then be related to the

participant’s gains in oral communication skills at the end of the 13 weeks Spring semester. This

paper aims to answer the following questions:

1. What are the communicative strategies used by the English speakers’ leaners of Spanish

during Pre-test, mid (ECA) and Final Oral tasks?

8

2. What are the similarities and differences in the patterns of use of CSs after the treatment

between the control and experimental groups with regards the different oral tasks that

elicited spontaneous speech?

5. Methodology

5.2 Participants

The participants were enrolled in a 3 credit, intermediate Spanish 13-weeks course,

during the Spring 2019. The participants in the control (n = 12) and experimental group (n = 20)

were undergraduate students from the University of Florida. The class met 50 minutes, three

times a week, Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays. The aim of the Spanish course, was to develop

L2 communicative skills, while enhancing social and cultural awareness of the Spanish-speaking

world. The participants in one classroom (n = 20), 16 females and 4 males, ages between 18 and

20 years old, received explicit instruction of CS. The participants in the other classroom (n = 12)

9 females and 3 males, same age range, taught by the same instructor, did not receive this

specific information on strategies, but had otherwise the same syllabus and course material than

the other classroom. The total male gender in both groups was only 7, so gender was not

considered a variable in the current research. The two sections were selected because it was

taught by the same instructor.

5.3 Materials – the students were administered a consent form and a language background

questionnaire. The textbook used throughout the semester for both groups, was a five chapters

textbook, containing themes of social contexts, from everyday life to more universal ones like

family, love, social roles and issues, etc. The students engaged in oral activities, while making

9

comparisons between their own and other people’s perspectives, values and believes in

relationship to the Spanish communities and culture.

5.4. Speaking Tasks – a total of three interpersonal oral tasks, were used to examine the explicit

instruction of CSs, in both classrooms, at different times in the semester: a pre-tests, and two a

semi-guided task (a mid-test/ECA and a final test/Oral Exam), on CSs used. Prior to

administering the CSs, a pre-test was performed. The students were asked to converse with a

partner of their choice, about who they were, where they were born and what they expected to

gain from the Spanish class at the end of the course semester. The oral data was collected using

their smartphones and submitted to the instructor via Dropbox. Each task lasted approximately 2

minutes per group for both, experimental and control group (for excerpts of pre-test samples, see

“Appendix C”).

The mid-test was also an interpersonal task. The Effective Communication Task or ECA,

was administered a month after the CSs were taught. This task required the student to converse

spontaneously with a partner, on a variety of topics studied to that point in class. For example,

they were asked to discuss relationships, to talk about characteristics what they value in people,

describe what type of relationship(s) they wanted to have in the future, share their opinion on

traditional and modern attitudes of being single, etc. The experimental group were asked to use

the 5 CSs taught in class.

The control group were asked to do the same. The instructions for this task, were

projected in a power point slide. For the experimental group, not only the topics were projected,

but also each of the explicit 5 CSs. The students were recorded using a Sony, Digital Voice

Recorder ICD-BX140, while the instructor walked around the classroom, evaluating each

interaction, in a nonintrusive manner. The selection of their students ‘partner, were selected

10

randomly by the instructor using their names tag. The groups were provided with 35 minutes

window to carry out their discussions, (for excerpt ECA samples, see “Appendix D”).

The final-test or Oral Exam, was also a even minutes oral interaction: 2 minutes to

strategize the topic and five minutes to spontaneously enact it with the partner. Unlike ECA, the

students were provided with a less contextualized scenario, only one topic per group. For

example, they were asked to discuss immigration/deportation and to express their opinion and

feelings and control for grammatical forms, such as past tense, imperfect and subjunctive. So,

five envelopes with the topic inside, were randomized and given to the groups, so they could

select one. The topics were unknown by the group of students and the instructor until the envelop

was opened. The students selected their peers. And the conversation was recorded using a

Handy Recorded, H4n Pro (for excerpt Oral Exam samples, see “Appendix E”).

5.5. The Experiment

The experimental group, which comprised 20 participants, received explicit instruction

on the 5 CSs in order to help them convey meaning, when communication breakdowns and, as

well as, help them to be aware of the importance of the CSs. Since it has been established that

CSs explicit instructions can enhance oral skills during spontaneous settings, some strategies

should be taught (Dörnyei and Scott 173-210; Maldonado 23-51; Maleki; Rabab’ah 625-651). 5

CSs: clarification request, ensuring comprehension, paraphrasing/circumlocution, self-repair and

filled pauses were selected and explicitly taught by the instructor, following the course material

and syllabus, and the research guidelines (see below) (for Dörnyei and Scott Taxonomy, see

“Appendix F”).

11

In order to keep the students fully aware of the 5 CSs, they were given the strategy sheet

that included, not only the definition of the strategies, but also the CSs examples, facilitating

their use when communicating. So, prior to administering the CSs, the student were introduced

to the material and were told the importance of learning the strategies in order to motivate them.

The control group, which comprised 12 students, received no explicit instruction on CSs. Both

groups took a pre-test speaking task, mid-test and final test.

5.6 Classroom CSs Instructions

The explicit instructions on the 5 CSs selected and implemented by the instructor and

researcher, consisted in using these CSs, in the oral activities. These CSs were designed to

provide the experimental group with strategies when practicing and using the target language in

case of a communication breakdown. The oral activities aimed to develop vocabulary items,

while teaching the students to interact in Spanish multilingual communities at home and around

the world.

The CSs instructions consisted in three parts: part 1.- Presentation and explanation of the

5 CS; part 2.- Using communicative peer/group activities with a focus on CS and peer feedback

evaluation on CSs used; and part 3.- Recordings.

Part 1 – Presentation and explanation of the 5 CS. At the beginning of the class, the

instruction was presented, one CS was explained per week, each of the three times the class met,

for about 10 minutes. A copy of the CSs definitions, were provided to each student. When the

instructor explained, they were also projected in a power point slide. While the instructor

reviewed the CSs, the students were asked to have their own copy on the desk during the

instruction, so they can use it when exercising. For example, when expressing nonunderstanding,

12

in a situation when a learner did not understand something verbally, causing communication

breakdown, they used the performance related to L1-L2 based CS, by asking for clarification or

repetition (CR) (Dörnyei and Scott 173-210); or, when they were trying to recall something, they

resorted to filled pauses, such as: este, bueno, pues, etc . Once the last CS of the 5CSs was

taught, then, a new cycle of reviewing them started again. This occurred half of the semester.

The explanation of these CSs were also accompanied by spontaneous short clips from

Dialectoteca del español, as well as, samples drawn from ACTFL Communication Oral. The

clips were presented in class at the end of the week. The students were asked to watch and

identify the targeted CS used by the speakers in the video-clip. The video-clip was played two

times: the first time only to listen, the second time to write down the type of CS observed. The

observations made by the students were shared, first in groups, then as a whole class.

Part 2 – Using communicative activities with a focus on CSs and peer feedback

evaluation on CSs used. In peer/group activity, they students engaged in oral activities already

designed and pre-stablished in the course syllabus. An example of a picture description activity

is explained below:

Activity 1 – the students were asked to bring to class an image of the chapter topic being

reviewed in class that represented, for example, a social inequality situation, on the role of

women/native people. In pairs, one student described the image to the partner without revealing

it. The latter student drew this image in his/her notebook and kept record of the type(s) of CS(s)

used by the partner, as they were encouraged to use the CSs. Each student took turns to provide

the description of their image. At the end of the exchange, the group showed their drawings and

decided whether if it was a good representation of the description uttered, while negotiating

13

meaning. At the end, the students were asked to evaluate each other in the use of CSs, based on

types(s) and how much Spanish the employed.

(Rabab’ah 625-651) states that only through the learner’s own awareness of the

existence of such difficulties when communicating, the learners can overcome or solve these

issues. (Maldonado 23-51; Poulisse 77-87) state that promoting collaboration and assistance

from their peers, can help and convey meaning during oral speech.

In order to make sure that the instructions were being followed, the instructor walked

through the classroom during the oral activities to check and assist the groups. This type of

picture description activity was performed 5 times, at the beginning of each of the 5 chapters of

the textbook. Other oral activities involving the use of the CSs, was based on short films

reviewed in class as part of the course material. In pairs or groups, the students provided the

description of the characters of the film, and plot, while comparing views with regards the

Spanish culture and their own.

Part 3 – Recordings. The students were recorded while carrying out the oral tasks for the

2 posttests, ECA and Oral Exam. For both tasks, the students were required to converse

spontaneously with a partner on a variety of topics studied to that point in class (e.g., the family

and romantic relationships, social role of women and issues with regards the Spanish

communities).

6. Results

Findings related to question #1.- “What are the communicative strategies used by the

English speakers’ leaners of Spanish during Pre-test, mid (ECA) and Final Oral tasks?”

14

In response to the first question, the overall findings indicated that the learners made used

of the 5 CSs after treatment. The learners resorted to all of the 5 CSs taught. For the total of the

32 students, 221 instances of the 5 CSs were observed. The percentages and frequency for the 5

CSs that goes from the most to the least frequently used are exhibited in Table 1 Overall Use of

Communicative Strategies by the Learners. below:

Table 1. shows strategy types, the 5 CSs investigated in this research, the observed

frequency, including number of instances and percentages, and lthe frequency rank of the 5 CSs

used. From the results, we learn that the grand total was 221 instances production of the 5 CSs by

both groups, control and experimental. The self-repair (SR) ranked #1 with 119 instances

(53.84%), the comprehension check (CC) ranked #2 with 34 instances (15.38%), third

paraphrasing (PA) ranked #3 with 29 instances (13.12%), the clarification (RC) ranked #4 with

23 instances (10.40%) and finally the least used CS was filled-pauses (FP) with sixteen

instances (7.23%) of the entire CSs corpus.

Table 1. Overall Use of Communicative Strategies by the Learners.Strategy type Category Observed frequency Frequency

rankN. of instances %

SR L1-L2 based 119 53.84 1

CC L1-L2 based 34 15.38 2

PA L2 based 29 13.12 3

RC L1-L2 based 23 10.40 4

FP strategy marker 16 7.23 5

Total= 221 instances

15

The data also indicated that the groups employed significantly more SR (53.84%) than

the rest of the CSs. The SR is an own performance problem-related strategy: L1-L2 based, and it

was used by the student when making a self-initiated correction in their own speech or a self-

correction. The students also employed significantly fewer FP with 7.23% over the whole 5 CSs

corpus, an implicit performance marker, when the student was transitioning to another idea, or

wanted to add something else to intended message. The CC is an own performance problem

related, L1-L2 based, meaning when the student asked questions to make sure the interlocutor

understood; RC, other problem related strategy, L1-L2 based, meaning that the listener requested

an explanation or a repetition of the speakers’ utterance due to comprehension break down. And

PA resource deficit-related strategy, L2 based, the student resorted to this strategy, when

exemplifying, illustrating, or describing the properties of an object or actions during the oral

exchange.

Table 2. The Use of Communicative Strategies Across Task Type. Strategy

typeCategories Observed frequency across oral tasks

N. of instances and (%) Pre-test Post-tests

ECA/mid-test Oral Exam/final testCG EG CG EG CG EG

SR L1-L2 based 2 1 27 (71.05) 86 (57.71) 2 (25) 5 (16.66)

CC L1-L2 based 1 0 2 (5.26) 26 (17.44) 3 (37.5) 3 (10)

PA L2 based 0 0 6 (15.78) 17 (11.40) 1 (12.5) 5 (16.66)

RC L1-L2 based 0 0 3 (7.89) 16 (10.73) 2 (25) 2 (6.66)

FP strategy marker 0 0 0 4 (2.68) 0 15 (50)

16

Total instances= 2 1 38 149 8 30

Findings related to question #2. - “What are the similarities and differences in the

patterns of use of CSs after the treatment between the control and experimental groups with

regards the different oral tasks that elicited spontaneous speech?”

The data shows that prior the explicit teaching of CSs, both groups in the pre-test, used

significantly few of the 5 CSs typed. Total of 3 instances of CSs were produced by the learners.

The control group (CG) only employed two SR, L1-L2 based, when making self-initiated

correction; whereas, the experimental group (EG) used only 1 SR, L2-L1 based. It seems that

SR, was the preferential strategy among the two groups, no other type of CSs investigated in this

study was used.

The data from ECA, shows that the CS most produced by both groups was SR, an own-

performance problem related strategy, L1 - L2 based. The EG used 86 instances of this strategy,

meaning 57.71% from the grand total (149); whereas the CG used 27, 71.05% from the grand

total (38). The second CS most used by the EG, was CC, an own L1-L2 based own performance

with 26 (17.44%), whereas the CG was PA, an L2 based resource deficit strategy with 6

(15.78%); then, PA 17 (11.40%) and RC, an L1-L2 based other performance, 16 (10.73%) used

by the EG, compared to 3 (7.89%) used by the CG. Finally, FP was the least used among the two

groups. The EG used it 4 (2.68%), whereas the CG did not produce this type of strategy.

Data from the OE shows that 30 instances out of 38 CSs total instances were produced by

the EG, compared to the CG that produced 8 out of 38 total CSs instances. Contrary to ECA

findings from the OE tasks, shows that the EG used more frequency of FP strategy, the EG

17

produced 15 instances of this strategy, meaning 50% of the grand total (30). SR and PA

strategies were second and third most produced by the EG, both with 5 instances (16.66%),

follow to CC with 3 instances (10%), and RC the least produced with only 2 instances (6.66%).

On the contrary, the CG produced higher number of CC with 3 instances (37.5%), follow to SR

and RC both with 2 (25%), lastly PA with only 1 instance (12.5%) of the total CSs corpus.

The fact that the EG produced different type and frequency of every CSs explicitly

taught, can be attributed to the explicit teaching of CSs. The CG produced fewer repertoire of

CSs, 4 out the 5 CSs type taught, having FP being the only type of CS not produced across tasks,

whereas the EG produced it in 15 instances; whereas the CG did not show any production of this

type of CS.

The tasks instructions for the posttests were administered equally to both groups. It

required the students to converse spontaneously on different of topics studied until that point of

the semester. For the mid test or ECA, the groups were provided with 35 minutes window to

deliver the conversation. For the OE or Final Exam, it required the students to converse

spontaneously on a variety of topics. They were given 7 minutes to perform, in other words, the

students had less ample of opportunity for oral production and consequently less opportunity to

produce CSs. It may be noted that the EG comprised 20 and the CG comprised 12 students,

almost less than half of number of total EG students.

The results observed on both oral tasks, are in line with (Rabab’ah 625-651; Maldonado

23-51; Ghout-Khenoune 770-779; Poulisse 77-87), who reported that their participants used

different types of CSs across different tasks (e.g., picture description, interviews) and

interlocutor type. In their studies, they also explained that the nature of the task type, context,

task demands, time constraint and even interlocutor type are important factors to consider when

18

explaining this phenomenon of quantitative difference of CSs. For this study, only task type –

spontaneous speech more and less contextualized - and time constraints seemed to be the most

relevant. For further investigation, it will be interesting to see whether theme/topic can also be a

factor in the CSs frequency and type production.

Other observations made on the oral production with regard the CG, they employed

higher number of English utterances when negotiating meaning (e.g., “umh like/umh como”, “…

tu familia ese de wait/your family is from wait”, “…comida para survive/food to survive”) and

other types of interactional communicative strategy, such as direct appeal for help (e.g., “¿Cómo

se dice besides/fabricated/raddish/How do you say besides/fabricated/raddish?”) or word coinage

(e.g. “heritados/heritage”, “asino anciano/nursery home”), retrieval (e.g., “mucho leer le or le lea

lear…/to read a lot”), among others. On the contrary, the EG employed fewer instances of

English words and used other types of CSs, such as interactional appeal for help and

approximation/restructuring (e.g.,“estas, esta soletería/these this single life”, “visitor visito

visitamos/to visit, I visit you, we visit you”), were observed.

A tentative explanation for the above, would lead to think also that the students’ cultural

background as well as, the students’ language experience may be factors. Some of them come

from and grew up in a Spanish home, possess other cultural background, have studied abroad

(e.g., Spain) for a few months and/or lived with a Spanish speaking roommate; whereas other

have taking few Spanish course during High School.

The data from their peer feedback evaluation during a picture description task, in the use

of CS, is shown in Table 3. The results from this activity shows a grand total of 99 instances. The

CSs most used was SR with 22 instances (22.22%), follow by the CC and FP with 20 instances

(20.20%), PA with 19 instances (19.19%), and the least used was the RC with 18 instances

19

(18.18%). The results resembles the results from the overall use of CSs mentioned in Table. 1

and the used across task reported in Table 2. The results shows that the 3 rd and 4th most used CSs

were SR, CC, just like the ones reported for the posttests. Interestingly, this time the FP was

reported as the third most used, whereas the PA and RC are the least used, ranked 4 th and 5th.

This observation contrast with the ones reported for the posttests. In the posttests, the FP were

reported to be the least used, whereas the PA and RC were ranked 3 rd and 4th as the most used,

meaning higher in rank. It may be noted that this task was administered mid of the semester.

The students also reported that the employed great deal of Spanish and resorted to less

English, when communicating. They also thought that using CSs were very helpful because they

allowed them gauge time to thing and plan their thoughts.

Table 3. Peer Feedback Evaluation Picture Description Task in the use of CSCSs type

Scale from most used (+) to least used (-)N. of instances and %

SR 22 (22.22)

CC 20 (20.20)

FP 20 (20.20)

PA 19 (19.19)

RC 18 (18.18)

Total instances = 99

With regards the final self-evaluation on the use of CSs, the students expressed that the

most used CS were RC and FP, eleven out of 32 students reported to employ this strategy. The

preferential use of the RC is aligned with the one reported in the peer feedback evaluation. And

20

this time, FP was ranked as the second most preferred CS. This preference is also aligned with

the observed in the peer feedback evaluation, but contrasts with the observations from the

posttests. The used of the FP was ranked last. Nine students reported that SR was useful, 6

students thought that SR was useful, and 4 students though that the CS was the least useful of the

5 CSs.

All students expressed that learning the 5 CSs were very useful. They said that learning

the CS, provided them with more speech planning time and prevented them from using English

and encouraged the use of more Spanish language. They also said that they will use the CSs in

the future, even outside classroom time.

Implications and Conclusions

In the current study, the analysis of the data indicated an effect of CSs explicit teaching

by the EG. This group made of use of different frequency of every CSs type taught (clarification

request, comprehension questions, paraphrasing/circumlocution, self-repair, and the strategic

marker “filled-pause”).

Table 4. Students Self-report in the Use of the 5 CSs.CSs type

Scale from most used (+) to least used (-)N. of instances and %

RC 11

FP 11

SR 9

PA 6

CC 4

21

This result is parallel with our expectation and the literature reviewed in the study. It was

observed that the type tasks significantly affects the frequency and type of CSs in the

spontaneous task in time constraint tasks. Further observation revealed that higher frequency of

CS production was the SR by both groups namely self-repair, L1 or L2 based strategy; then CC,

comprehension check, L1 or L2 based; PA, paraphrasing, L2 based; RC, requesting clarification,

also an L1 or L2 based; and the least produced was FP, filled-pauses. It seems that L1 or L2

based strategies were more prevalent than the L2 based one.

Other observations made, was the use of higher instances of English utterances, instead

of Spanish by the CG. This typically occurred when restructuring an idea or resorted to appeal

for help, leading to a higher cost of communication gap, as well as, time to deliver the intended

message effectively. It was also noticed the use of other types of strategies, such as word

coinage, instead of paraphrasing the word. This outcome may have impeded to communicate

effectively during the spontaneous tasks. The cultural background of the student might have also

help to explain this linguistic output. Yet, further studies are needed to support this evidence.

Finally, language teachers should teach not only these types of CSs, but also include

other types of interactional task, such as direct appeal for help, while raising awareness of the

importance of use of the CSs in communicative tasks and real-life scenarios. We also learned

that the category strategic type most used was L2/L1 based. This is viewed positively, because

the students were drawing more from the target language. Nevertheless, there is no doubt the

need to conduct further investigations, more specifically in the explicit teaching of the CSs in

EFL Spanish context.

22

Works Cited

Alibakhshi, Goudarz, and Davood Padiz. "The Effect of Teaching Strategic Competence on

Speaking Performance of EFL Learners." Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2.4

(2011): 941-7. Web.

Bialystok, Ellen. "The Competence of Processing: Classifying Theories of Second Language

Acquisition." TESOL quarterly 24.4 (1990): 635-48. Web.

Bialystok, Ellen, and Maria Fröhlich. "Oral Communication Strategies for Lexical

Difficulties." Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (1980): 3-30. Web.

23

Dornyei, Zoltan, and Stephen Ryan. The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited.

Routledge, 2015. Web.

Dörnyei, Zoltán. "On the Teachability of Communication Strategies." TESOL quarterly 29.1

(1995): 55-85. Web.

Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Mary Lee Scott. "Communication Strategies in a Second Language:

Definitions and Taxonomies." Language learning 47.1 (1997): 173-210. Web.

Faerch, Claus. "Plans and Strategies in Foreign Language Communication." Strategies in

interlanguage communication (1983)Web.

FAERCH, CLAUS, and Gabriele Kasper. "Perspectives on Language Transfer." Applied

Linguistics 8 (1987): 111. Periodicals Archive Online, Periodicals Index Online. Web.

Faerch, Claus, and Gabriele Kasper. "Strategic Competence in Foreign Language

Teaching." Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language

classroom (1986): 179-93. Web.

Kasper, Gabriele, and Eric Kellerman. Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and

Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Routledge, 2014. Web.

Kennedy, Sara, and Pavel Trofimovich. "Research Timeline: Second Language Communication

Strategies." Language Teaching 49.4 (2016): 494-512. Linguistics and Language Behavior

Abstracts (LLBA). Web.

Maleki, Ataollah. "Techniques to Teach Communication Strategies." Journal of Language

Teaching & Research 1.5 (2010)Web.

24

Mirsane, Mansoureh, and Mona Khabiri. "The Effect of Teaching Communicative Strategy on

EFL Learners’ Willingness to Communicate." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6.2

(2016): 399-407. Web.

Moattarian, Asa. "Iranian EFL Learners' Perception and Performance of Communication

Strategies in Different Mediums of Communication." Theory and Practice in Language

Studies 2.11 (2012): 2349. Web.

Poulisse, Nanda. "Variation in Learners’ use of Communication Strategies." Learning

styles (1990): 77-87. Web.

Rabab’ah, Ghaleb. "The Effect of Communication Strategy Training on the Development of EFL

Learners’ Strategic Competence and Oral Communicative Ability." Journal of

psycholinguistic research 45.3 (2016): 625-51. Web.

Razmjou, Leila, and Javad Afsari Ghazi. "Listening Practice Influence on the use of

Communication Strategies in Oral Translation." Theory & Practice in Language Studies 3.9

(2013a)Web.

---. "Listening Practice Influence on the use of Communication Strategies in Oral

Translation." Theory & Practice in Language Studies 3.9 (2013b)Web.

---. "Listening Practice Influence on the use of Communication Strategies in Oral

Translation." Theory & Practice in Language Studies 3.9 (2013c)Web.

Rosas Maldonado, Maritza. "Communication Strategies used by Different Level L2 English

Learners in Oral Interaction." Revista signos 49.90 (2016): 71-93. Web.

25

Rosas-Maldonado, Maritza. "Use of Communication Strategies in an Interactional Context: The

Interlocutor Influence." Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 53.4 (2017a): 563-92.

Web.

---. "Use of Communication Strategies in an Interactional Context: The Interlocutor

Influence." Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 53.4 (2017b): 563-92. Linguistics

and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA). Web.

Savignon, Sandra J. "Teaching for Communicative Competence: A Research Report." Audio-

Visual Language Journal (1972)Web.

Selinker, Larry. "Interlanguage." IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching 10.1-4 (1972): 209-32. Web.

Sukirlan, Muhammad. "Teaching Communication Strategies in an EFL Class of Tertiary

Level." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4.10 (2014): 2033. Web.

Tarone, Elaine. "Communication Strategies, Foreigner Talk, and Repair in Interlanguage

1." Language learning 30.2 (1980): 417-28. Web.

---. "Conscious Communication Strategies in Interlanguage: A Progress Report." on

TESOL 77.194-203 (1977)Web.

---. "Some Thoughts on the Notion of Communication Strategy." TESOL quarterly 15.3 (1981):

285-95. Web.

Tarone, Elaine, Andrew D. Cohen, and Guy Dumas. A Closer Look at some Interlanguage

Terminology: A Framework for Communication Strategies. Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education, 1976. Web.

26

Tavakoli, Mansoor, Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi, and Masood Esteki. "The Effect of Explicit

Strategy Instruction on L2 Oral Production of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners: Focusing

on Accuracy, Fluency and Complexity." Journal of Language Teaching & Research 2.5

(2011)Web.

Tian, Ye, Takehiko Maruyama, and Jonathan Ginzburg. "Self Addressed Questions and Filled

Pauses: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation." Journal of psycholinguistic research 46.4 (2017):

905-22. Web.

Tree, Jean E. Fox. "Listeners' Uses Ofum Anduh in Speech Comprehension." Memory &

cognition 29.2 (2001): 320-6. Web.

Váradi, Tamás. "Strategies of Target Language Learner Communication: Message-

Adjustment." IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 18.1

(1980): 59. Web.

Wang, Dianjian, Hongling Lai, and Michael Leslie. "Chinese English Learners’ Strategic

Competence." Journal of psycholinguistic research 44.6 (2015): 701-14. Web.

Appendix A: Pre-test speaking task

Ask your partner the questions below. Once you are done, upload it via Dropbox, into a folder called “Conoce a tu compañero(a)” (you will receive an email with this instruction soon after you start this activity)

Make sure to take turns. Ask the following:

1. His/her name and what he/she is studying

S1: ¿Cómo te llamas? S2: Me llamo…

S1: ¿Qué estudias? S2: Yo estudio…

2. where he/she is from and describe the region

27

S1: ¿De dónde eres y cómo es? ¿Cuál es tu ciudad natal?

S2: Soy de … y es …

3. ¿Qué esperas aprender de este curso?

S1: Espero aprender ….

Appendix B: 5 Communicative Strategies Used in the Study

28

29

30

Appendix C: Raw Excerpt Pre-test by the Experimental Group (106 w/C)

Excerpt Pre-test on the Control Group (129 w/c)

31

Appendix D: Raw Sample Excerpt for the Effective Communication Transcript (ECA) by

the Experimental Group (in 133 w/c)

Sample Excerpt for the Effective Communication Transcript (ECA) by the Control Group

(in 181 w/c)

32

Appendix E: Raw Excerpt Oral Exam Transcript on the Experimental Group (181 w/c)

Raw Excerpt Oral Exam Transcript on the Experimental Group (179 w/c)

33

Appendix F: Taxonomy of the Five Communicative Strategies (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997).

34

35

36

37

38

39