Strategies for Encouraging Reticent Students to Speak

By Daniel Tse

Language teachers often encounter reticent students in their classes. These students sometimes show a willingness to speak in the classroom, but they may quickly fall silent after a few sentences – or words. When their lips begin to move, they may mutter words that their classmates can hardly make out. A communicative breakdown soon follows; the speaking activity is rendered unsuccessful as its learning aim remains unachieved. Frustrating though it may be, this is a common issue among all age groups and learning contexts and is something that requires attention.

While there are universal strategies such as giving students thinking time, demanding a minimum amount of spoken contribution, and creating meaningful communicative contexts, I aim to share several more that have worked effectively with my English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students.

Lack of language knowledge

Students are unable to speak if they have a narrow range of lexis, or sometimes insufficient grammatical or phonological knowledge, to express their ideas in the target language. The obvious strategy lies in providing students with language input prior to a speaking activity. The question, however, is not so much about what kind of input teachers choose to give but how the input is given.

Modelling is a useful tool with lower-level students and especially Young Learners. When setting up a speaking activity, the teacher demonstrates a sample response that the students are expected to produce. For example, when planning an activity that involves students telling each other about their favourite types of music, I first develop a model response so that I can analyse the level-appropriate language my students will need to use. This language, including commonly used grammatical structures and vocabulary items, is purposefully included in my spoken model for the activity.

Based on my observation, perceptive students can usually notice a few language features in my spoken model; they may be able to incorporate one of these features in their spoken output subsequently. For weaker students, I have found modelling as a strategy more effective when sentence frames are provided in their written form. Students can use these fixed or semi-fixed expressions to begin their spoken turns; they continue the sentences with their own ideas.

I listen to it when…

I really like it because…

It makes me feel…

(Examples of sentence frames, CEFR A2)

A similar strategy involves providing input in the form of phrase banks. This helps students to maintain spoken interaction in open discussions and, to some extent, prevent it petering out too soon. In the classroom, discussions need not be restricted to their narrow definition of language or skill practice; they occupy several other parts of the lesson, including the lead-ins, pre-listening or pre-reading prediction tasks, and follow-ons to receptive skills work. Before my students take part in an open discussion, I often pre-teach or elicit the functional exponents commonly used in this communicative setting, such as the expressions for agreeing and disagreeing. Coursebooks refer to these expressions as useful language.

Agreeing

Yes, I (completely) agree. […]

That’s a good point. I also think…

Absolutely. Like you said, […]

Disagreeing

You’ve got a point (there), but…

I’m not sure I fully agree. […]

You may be right, but…

(Examples of functional language: agreeing and disagreeing, CEFR B2)

Early in my teaching career, many open discussions would lose momentum as pairs of students tended to complete their spoken turns without engaging in meaningful interaction. If they were prompted to agree or disagree with their partner, they would conveniently say “I agree” and stop speaking afterwards. Students, therefore, need to be told explicitly that the functional exponents are merely starter expressions; they should carry on speaking by adding further opinions or ideas. This helps them to avoid awkward silences as well as explore ideas more fully in discussions.

The teacher’s support, or scaffolding, in the form of phrase banks can gradually be withdrawn as students become more autonomous (Burns et al., 1996). This can happen across several months or even the entire course, as in the case of my EFL and EAP classes. It is also true that no two students will achieve autonomy at the same pace. Consequently, functional language is not limited to the role of the learning target in function-based lessons; students can benefit from frequent reminders to use such language in wider speaking activities, too.

Inadequate skills

I was working recently with four pre-Intermediate postgraduate students at a fine arts college. In question-and-answer activities, some of my students initially struggled to speak more than a few sentences despite my language input. Three minutes’ think time yielded three spoken sentences.

These students were used to rote learning at school, which led to a fair amount of reading from a prepared script ad verbatim. They also gave incoherent responses as their primary focus was on the surface language.

To steer them away from reading aloud scripted responses in spoken interaction, I asked my students to analyse several model responses in terms of their idea structure. When my students read a model response, they had to identify whether certain sentences contain a supporting example, reason, or contrasting idea. This enabled them to gain an understanding of how to develop ideas coherently in spoken responses.

In exam preparation classes, some students are reticent not because they do not have sufficient language knowledge, but they may lack the practical skill of organising ideas in their speech. To give my students targeted support for their long turns, I use flow charts to illustrate a possible structure of talk tailored to the type of exam task. This enables my students to rely on a framework for extended speech. It also reduces their cognitive load during the long turn. Below is an example that I have used for teaching the long turn task in Cambridge First for Schools speaking exam:

Personality and cultural expectations

Many people, language learners or otherwise, are naturally shy and reticent. In certain cultures, people are conditioned to avoid losing face in front of their peers or letting their teachers down. This causes them to worry about making mistakes, or not being able to give “perfect” responses, in speaking activities. Depending on their learning background, students may not be accustomed to interacting with their peers. This leads to reluctance or the inability to speak with each other in the classroom.

However strongly teachers wish they were mind readers, it would be impossible to know why certain students are silent based on observation alone. Needs analysis is, therefore, an indispensable tool for finding out the root cause of students’ silence. This involves finding out about their personalities and attitudes, among other factors that may affect learning (Brindley, 1989). At the beginning of a course, teachers can use a survey containing ranking questions in their needs analysis. The example below is the one that I have used in my EAP and business English courses:

How strongly do you agree with the following statements?

(1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree)

I prefer to know exactly how to do an activity before I start it.
I prefer to try doing an activity first and then think about how it works.
I prefer to copy how other people do an activity.
We learn languages by trial and error.
We learn languages by interacting with other people.
We can learn from, and with, other better students.

(Statements from different sections of the author’s self-designed survey)

You can use this sort of needs analysis in the traditional manner – by getting the students to complete a survey at the start of the course for the teacher to use when tailoring their approach to fit their learners’ needs – or by getting the students to debate these questions together. Sometimes the ideas that we take for granted – such as mistakes being an inevitable and, usually, desirable part of language learning – are the home of misconceptions among our students; raising awareness at an early stage can help your speaking activities run smoother as your own expectations are clearer from the off.

Teachers can also use surveys to gather information about the language skills that students would like to prioritise in their learning. This can yield interesting insights into students’ attitudes. If a teacher has been trained in the communicative approach, they may assume that speaking skills represent the most important learning need, but the opposite is true for some students. Due to their learning background, these students do not view language as a tool for communication, but merely a network of structural systems to be mastered. Or perhaps they do most of their English-language communication by email and speaking isn’t a priority. If you don’t ask, you won’t find out.

In one of my EAP classes, the following strategies have proved to be effective in dealing with clashing beliefs amicably, as well as in encouraging students to speak. The first strategy involves giving my students a handout of graded can-do statements at their target CEFR level, including those related to speaking skills. Using these statements for self-evaluation, my students reflect on their learning progress at regular intervals. This ensures that they cannot neglect speaking skills development in their learning.

The second strategy consists of gradual increases in the proportion and the level of challenge of speaking activities in my course syllabus. In the first half of the course, guided speaking represents the main type of practice that my students do; writing tasks are favoured over speaking tasks as their weekly assessed assignments. As the course progresses into the second half, the level of challenge increases; my students are required to take part in seminar group discussions and give spoken presentations.

With perseverance, constant encouragement, and feedback that treats errors as learning opportunities, the reticent students in my classes have become much more confident about speaking in less than four months.

Conclusion

The strategies mentioned above target the most common causes of students’ inability to speak in my teaching contexts. Teachers can – and should – develop tailored strategies for encouraging students to speak in the classroom. Depending on the exact cause, teachers may need to pursue multiple strategies for their interventions to work effectively. What is important though is for teachers and students alike to approach this issue in a positive frame of mind. Rather than dwell on students’ unwillingness or inability to speak, teachers can see it as a continuous process so that reticent students will be given ample opportunities to develop their speaking skills.

Bibliography

Burns, A., Joyce, H., & Gollin, S. (1996). ‘I see what you mean’. Using spoken discourse in the classroom: A handbook for teachers. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. 88–89.

Brindley, G. (1989). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 63–78). Cambridge University Press.

Biography