International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

Vol. 4, No. 6; April 2014

Implicit and Explicit Teaching of English Speaking in the EFL Classroom

Paul C. Talley, Ph.D.
I-Shou University
International College - Department of International Business Administration
No. 1, Section 1, Syuecheng Road
Dashu District
Kaohsiung, 84001, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Tu, Hui-ling
Tajen University
Department of Applied Foreign Languages
No. 20, Weisin Road
Sin-er Village, Yanpu Township
Pingtung County (907), Taiwan, R.O.C.

Abstract
Educators must reassess overall western teaching approaches in English teaching students in different language
and cultural backgrounds. Although a westernized communicative teaching approach is ideal to implement
language teaching, some Asian students are conservative to adopt or adapt it in their own English language
learning. Accordingly, an adapted English teaching approach may be innovated using implicit and explicit
teaching means. This paper focuses on the teaching of English speaking in the EFL classroom related to
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and teacher-student roles using explicit and implicit teaching
methods related to second language acquisition (SLA). Many Asian students now face direct inclusion into a
classroom environment that is Western pedagogically-speaking due to the influences of globalized higher
education. Any English speaking curriculum should have two design principles in mind: to expose students to
authentic and practical settings for speaking English, and to encourage students involvement and active
participation in English speaking.

Keyword: Implicit teaching, explicit teaching, communicative language teaching, teacher roles, student roles,
speaking strategies

1. Introduction
The diversity and hybridization of English language now requires learners to acquire a standard international
variety that is intelligible (i.e. broadly recognizable or comprehensible outside the local culture), while at the
same time local in terms of identity (Crystal, 2001, p. 57). To be specific bi-dialectalism(ibid.) has evolved
to allow two varieties of English, one international and one local, to coexist as mutually acceptable targets. In the
setting of different cultures and ethnic origins many EFL students may feel like they lose their identity. To deal
with the problem, Crystal (2001) suggested students recognize the importance of international diversity, as a
reflection of identity (ibid., p. 63). When students are exposed to globalization and transnational educational
standards they will develop roles encompassing intercultural competence.
The English-speaking teachers beliefs and practices often determine if the language items that are taught in the
EFL classroom will match students needs and expectations during EFL conversation classes. Based on study
findings, Wu (2006) indicated that there were few similarities between instructors teaching principles and
students expectations. She found that EFL learners often lacked access to native speakers models for their
linguistic input because of being non-native in the host culture. Accordingly, teachers who adopt the CLT
approach in their local EFL institution may find a similar disconnect which will cause resistance from students
who can neither understand nor appreciate what they consider as non-traditional teaching methods.
38

 Center for Promoting Ideas, USA

www.ijhssnet.com

2. Explicit and Implicit Instruction in the EFL Classroom

Conventionally, teachers implement both implicit and explicit teaching in EFL classrooms worldwide. In explicit
teaching, teachers give students rules to practice and make conscious efforts to learn. Oxford (1990) claimed that
defined explicit instruction could help students develop awareness of the learning strategies used, learn to think
of practicing the target language with the new strategies, students self-evaluation of the strategies used, and
students practice of transferring knowledge to newer tasks. On the other hand, according to Lee and Van Patten
(2003), The acquisition of implicit knowledge in language learning involves three separate procedures: 1.
Noticing; 2. comparing; and, 3. integrating (p. 171).
To illustrate, with implicit knowledge, learners may notice something and then become conscious of it in
language learning. They may compare noticed input items and then compares them to what extent they are
unknown to the learner. Or they may integrate a representation of the new input into deep level (i.e. long term)
memory. In brief, with implicit knowledge exists when learners have intuitive knowledge (e.g. grammaticality)
yet lack the ability to articulate it to others. The implicit teaching method is meant to create an opportunity for
learning without the students awareness of what has been learned. Implicit teaching methods help students
induce rules from examples given to them (Ellis, 1994, p. 642).Implicit teaching of strategy instruction has
been shown to help students reinforce their awareness of the language rules (Griffiths, 2003). For example, a
fundamental understanding of grammar rules makes it possible for students to logically work out their own
learning techniques and practical approaches.
Implicit understanding may result in explicit learning (Richards, & Renandya, 2002). An example of the process
of implicit teaching in the EFL classroom may often be seen during the classroom instruction of rules of syntax
governing English sentence structures. Based on universal grammar, the technical understanding of syntactic
arguments, might lay outside the linguistic awareness many EFL teachers and students consciously maintain.
This situation is perhaps why teachers and students alike will recognize the acceptable sound of a correct
sentence or reject what sounds incorrect, but remain unable to explain why it is so.
By contrast, in explicit teaching, teachers apply conscious or overt strategies to teach students through an
awareness that one is in the process of learning (Richards, & Schmidt, 2002). Explicit learning can involve
language activities such as teaching memorization techniques, hypothesis formation, or testing. EFL teachers are
encouraged to provide direct instruction in language learning strategies such as selective attention, activating
prior knowledge, summarizing, questioning, and making inferences, to mention just a few (Chamot, Barnhardt,
El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999). As such, strategy training may be considered an explicit approach to teaching
students how to apply language learning and language use strategies in the classroom. In his study, Seliger (1975)
found that adult ESL learners in the U.S. were able to retain knowledge of rules better after such knowledge had
been presented explicitly. Reber (1976) approved Seligers study and added that the crucial factors for explicit
teaching included the number of variables to be learnt, and the extent to which the critical features in the new
input were salient.
In sum, explicit teaching in the EFL classroom will provide students with a direct awareness of language learning
strategies, which constitutes one of the most important individual difference factors in L2 acquisition (Skehan,
1989). Explicit teaching of language learning strategies may be reduced when students are ready to accept
autonomy for their learning. Implicit learning may be facilitated through the deliberate scaffolding of strategies
instruction and allowing comprehension and memorization to take place. A carefully-planned and systematic
instruction of explicit teaching (e.g. MacIntyre, & Gardners (1994) path model of language learning) requires
students to first become aware of strategies, have reason to use them, and have reason to involve themselves in
language learning with some implicit degree of reflection, self-awareness, and internalization.

3. CLT and English Speaking in the Asian EFL Classroom

Speaking is an important part of teaching of any foreign language, and it requires a communicative approach
integrative of both implicit and explicit teaching methods in order to achieve successful integration into the EFL
curriculum. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is comprised of an approach to teaching a language
through a syllabus designed for instruction, materials, classroom techniques, teachers, and learners. The teaching
of spoken English in the EFL classroom requires students to learn English in their own cultural setting without
using their target language in a real situation.
39

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

Vol. 4, No. 6; April 2014

English speaking is a modified communicative activity that involves English spoken language to achieve a
particular goal or objective in the English language medium.
In the case of any international college (i.e. a significant enrollment of foreign students), this cultural facet of
language learning is not present. The EFL classroom environment represents the cultural boundaries of the host
culture with full language immersion, ready access to English-language media, and the presence of western
teachers. EFL students are fully expected to accept their portion of the communicative burden (Lee, &
VanPatten, 2003, p. 100). This communication burden implies that students are expected to be responsible for
initiating, responding, managing, and negotiating their part of the oral exchange. On the other hand, Rao (2000)
suggested that teachers adapt their teaching to the way that learners from a particular community. This means that
teaching styles and learning styles should be matched accordingly. In a classroom discussion involving teacher
and students, the communicative duty is shared among all classroom participants. However, in an oral test
situation, the burden falls clearly upon the individual student to speak rather than a collective effort commonly
found in group discussion. Either way, spoken communication (i.e., interpretation, expression, and / or
negotiation of meaning) will be expected by the teacher or of the students in order to determine learning-level
progression or for evaluative purposes.
The goal of this approach is to develop learners communicative competence and performance (Richards, &
Rodgers, 2001). In CLT, Richards and Rodgers (2001) suggested teachers and students to speak for
communication. Rao (2000) stated, Only by reconciling communicative activities with non-communicative
activities (i.e. explicit learning) in English classrooms can students in non-English-speaking countries benefit
from CLT (p. 85). Wong (2005) pinpointed that the CLT approach had grown largely out of a realization that
patterned practice and explicit grammar knowledge do not afford learners with the practical capability of
speaking their L2s in a communicative fashion. CLT was considered to have the potential to encourage both
practice and participation in authentic speaking situations. According to Chambers (1997), CLT promotes the use
of authentic, spontaneous, and functional language in an effort to build students spoken fluency. Students in the
EFL classroom are encouraged to deal with unrehearsed situations under the guidance, but not the control, of
their teachers. In a communicative classroom, learners are regularly placed in situational transactions and roleplay exercises (Crookall, & Oxford, 1991) that will involve selecting, sequencing, and arranging words,
sentences, and utterances to achieve unified spoken discourse. Students are expected to demonstrate their
comprehension in response to the task type and then to express themselves through some form of meaningful
language output, verbally or in writing.
Spoken interaction is necessary for language learning to occur, but its simple occurrence is insufficient by, and of,
itself. In an interactive linguistic environment, such as with the EFL classroom, the right amount and the right
kind of verbal interaction must occur simultaneously for learning to take place. Long (1990) proposed three
features of verbal interaction, including (a) input, (b) production, and (c) feedback When interpreting a language
by native speakers offered to the language learner (or by other learners) of a target language. Production (or
output) is the language spoken by the language learners themselves. Feedback is the reaction offered by the
conversational partners to the production of the language learner.
In classroom communication interaction, EFL students may achieve higher levels of speaking competence
through appropriate strategies. Richard-Amato (1996) proposed four strategies for students to learn spoken
English:
1. Think of what you are going to say.
2. Think about the structures you are using but do not let them interfere with
what you want to say.
3. Do not be afraid to make mistakes (mistakes are normal as you are learning a language).
4. When you are not understood, use repetition, gestures, synonyms, definitions, acting out, whatever
comes naturally as you begin to feel more proficient in the language (p. 55).
To practice the first strategy, learners have to reflect on existing background knowledge and how to frame what is
to be said with the vocabulary available. It is suggested that learners cast and recast the structure of their
sentences until it is comprehensible to the listeners around them. In addition, learners are encouraged to
understand that speech production is of greater importance than grammatical perfection when communicating
with others in the EFL classroom.
40

 Center for Promoting Ideas, USA

www.ijhssnet.com

4. CLT May Be Used to Confront the Behavior of Reticence

Many educators may question why the implementation of CLT methods in an Asian-setting EFL classroom
should be viewed as problematic. It is already an established fact that Asian students reticence and passivity are
often over-characterized (Li, &Jia, 2006, p. 192), over-generalized (Cheng, 2000, p. 441), exaggerated
(Cheng, 2000, p. 445), limited-in-scope (Liu, 2001, p. 42), misperceived (Watkins & Biggs, 2001, p. 437),
stereotypical (Belchamber, 2008, p. 59), or clich (Debashish, 2010, p. 153). For example, Jackson (2003)
portrayed Chinese learners of English in an English-medium undergraduate business course in Hong Kong as
both reticent and quiet. Jackson said that this was evident due to contextual elements that were related to a lack of
confidence stemming from their inability to participate orally in class. Tsou (2005) also approved to some degree
with the general notion that Asian students were as a group more reserved and reticent (p. 47) in the amount of
their oral classroom participation. This problem extends to the teaching context as well. Lee and Ng (2010) stated,
Reticence is a common problem faced by ESL / EFL teachers in classrooms, especially in those mainly with
Asian students (p. 302). So, the allegation represented in the literature that says Asian students, as a whole, are
reticent despite attempts to reasonably explain continues unabated except for purposes of common attribution.
Following these concepts, reticence remains as a potential obstacle to communicative competency in the EFL
classroom, and as such a cultural barrier to learning requiring explicit instruction and implicit learning.
The construction of relevant interpersonal meaning for language lessons will motivate greater student
participation in classroom discussion. Real speaking activities related to speaking involve real communication
and promote these kinds of practical learning experiences (Johnson, 1982). Such engagement presupposes the
taking up of an active role in verbal interaction by students. It is important to consider how implementation of a
westernized CLT approach can provide EFL teachers in English classrooms in Asia with a rationalization of the
core characteristics, the format, and the nature of instruction in CLT. According to Chang (2011), CLT in EFL
settings such as Taiwan may simply not fit the localized teaching setting. To illustrate, the overwhelmingly
positive theoretical and practical implications found in the CLT approach provide teachers, educators, and policymakers with reasons to implement CLT in university English education settings in Taiwan. However, there are
still many cultural barriers that continue to prevent optimal CLT implementation in the international college
classroom. The removal of these obstacles will require the direct involvement of both teachers and students in the
EFL classroom.
The goal of CLT is the achievement of communicative competence which emphasizes how speakers may
interpret intended meaning in a particular utterance, apart from its literal meaning. Hymes (1972) criticized
Chomsky's (1965) earlier notion about linguistic competence by pointing out its inadequacy to make any real
distinction between competence and performance aspects. Furthermore, Hymes commented that it is unrealistic
to think that no significant linguistic progress will ever be possible without the study ofhow forms are actually
put into use. As such, linguistic competence should fall under the domain of communicative competence since it
comprises four competence areas, namely, linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic. This competence is
also inclusive of tacit, subconscious knowledge of language structures, not normally available for spontaneous
report, but implicit in what the ideal speaker can say (Brown, Malmkjr, & Williams, 1996, p. 114). It is hoped
that students who use the language in a classroom setting will be able to approximately use it in a real-world
situation with the scaffolding support of the teachers direction and the opportunity to presuppose or infer with
what needs to be said. Scaffolding allows EFL students to accomplish the socio-cognitive task of learning the
English language (i.e., fluency) and to develop progressive linguistic growth (i.e., proficiency) (e.g. Ninio, &
Bruner, 1978). This is true in large part due to Vygotskys (1978) social-cultural theory which conceived of
language learning as an expansive and collective process that serves to develop a Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD construct of a situated learning atmosphere.
In CLT, a learner is the key agent in the learning process and the teacher is the facilitator. Ultimately, the goal of
CLT is to produce an autonomous learner through such interdependent means (Breen, & Candlin, 1980).
Language educators may value what the learner autonomy concept has to offer because of its utility as an
organizing principle within a broader framework of communicative or learner-centered pedagogies (Benson,
2001).In a CLT context, the role of the learner is assumed to be self-driven. The motivation of why someone
chooses to learn a foreign language may be different from student-to-student, but the goal of communicative
competency (i.e. fluency and proficiency) remains the same.
41

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

Vol. 4, No. 6; April 2014

Holec (1981) indicated that students should have self-determined learning objectives, self-selected learning
methods, self-evaluated learning progress, self-monitored learning behaviors, and self-assessed learning
outcomes to become autonomous learners. Drnyei (2001) claimed that learner autonomy is relevant to a
learners overall motivation to learn since it directly speaks to freedom of choice, which is a pre-requisite of
motivation. Breen and Candlin (1980) claimed that the teacher should pass some control over to the students. To
be specific, the power to help would either be relinquished or adapted to meet the learners needs. However, it is
easy for learner autonomy to be viewed as a challenge to cultural and educational traditions (Aoki, & Smith,
1999, p. 23) that is teacher-centered. In their study of learner autonomy of foreign students, Ho and Crookall
(1995) found that Chinese students did not present learner autonomy as comfortable but they often felt it
necessary to work independently of the teacher. Pierson (1996) indicated that traditional Chinese cultural values
in education actually upheld autonomy in learning and that rote learning and overt teacher authority were actually
legacies of British colonialist rule first established in the Hong Kong territories.

5. Roles of Teachers in the Asian EFL Classroom

The interactive role of the teacher in the EFL classroom should not be underestimated. Teachers play an
important role of who does and does not speak in the EFL classroom. Nation and Newton (2009) indicated that
teachers were usually the people who have the power to control both the content and the procedure of classroom
learning, the discussion topic, and the decision of who may or may not participate. For example, when she was
examining factors for students reticence, Tsui (1996) found that the role of the teacher (i.e. way of interacting
with students) directly influenced students reticence in the classroom. According to In addition, he found that the
teacher regulates the speaking turns, provides both positive and negative feedback to encourage or discourage
learner behavior, and motivates students through constructive criticism and meaningful dialogue. In other words,
teachers either facilitated or inhibited the participatory patterns for learners to deal with reticence.
Beyond the directive or controlling roles that EFL teachers assume, the teachers roles that are most significant
for students are to provide a good English speaking model and to scaffold assistance for EFL students. Voller
(1997) outlined three metaphorical roles for teachers: (a) facilitator, (b) counselor, and (c) authoritative resource.
As a facilitator, the teacher is to provide verbal support for the learners in the classroom. In the role of counselor,
the teacher may counsel learners on a one-to-one basis to make sure that they understand what said. In the roleas
an authoritative resource was, teachers provide learners with the necessary informational support they need until
the process of fading, removal of the scaffolding, becomes suitable.
Holec (1985) proposed that the teacher could function in a less directive way as a facilitator by personalizing the
learning experience through intrinsic motivation and awareness-raising strategies. By making the learning
process more accessible (i.e. helping learners to clear away obstacles, find shortcuts, and negotiate difficult
passages) to students, the teacher could facilitate planning, independent language learning, self-evaluation, and
the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Voller (1997) indicated that the least directive role teachers could assume
would be to act as instructional counselors since they were the people in the best position to provide information
and answer questions about self-access resources and how best to use them (p. 104). Wolff (1994) indicated that
teachers could serve as an authoritative resource for language learners since teachers were capable of sharing
action knowledge (p. 14) in the form of meaningful learning experiences and personal exemplars of goal
achievement in learning how to speak authentic English. In the role of authoritative resource, teachers can
demonstrate the kind of desired learning behaviors that facilitate language learning according to the better
judgment of the teacher vis--vis the student.
Another important role of the teacher in the EFL classroom is as an implementer of effective EFL speaking
strategies whenever students are reluctant to speak. Tsui (1996) formulated six teacher-centered speaking
strategies to help students overcome anxiety and reticence: (a) to lengthen wait times between question and
responses, (b) to improve questioning techniques, (c) to accept a variety of answers rather than a set response, (d)
to allow for student rehearsals, (e) to focus on content over form, and (f) to establish good relations with students.
In addition, Tsui suggested that teachers can remind students to avoid rote answers or given responses by
replacement with those that demonstrate individuality. Practically speaking, Teachers also can provide some clues
or references for students can to reflect on those ideas and expressions in class discussions. And, of course, the
level of rapport between teacher and student is of great importance in creating the trust required for open and
meaningful classroom discussion.
42

 Center for Promoting Ideas, USA

www.ijhssnet.com

Lee and Ng (2010) claimed that the directive role of teachers was significantly important in classroom interaction
and speaking development. Accordingly, three types of teacher-initiated interaction strategy were proposed for
use in the EFL oral classroom: teacher-fronted, facilitator-fronted, and learner-oriented. In his study, Cullen (2002)
found that the teacher-fronted strategy allowed teachers to transmit and construct knowledge to students, but
directly influenced student initiative to speak. However, this strategy was almost always form-focused, which did
little to encourage the kind of meaningful (i.e. spontaneous) classroom interaction. In their study, Lee and Ng
(2010) found that the facilitator-fronted strategy was best at allowing teachers to facilitate spoken interaction
through the personalization of topic matter. Students were also more inclined to use referential questions relevant
to other students and themselves, reformulation of personal utterances, elaboration of self-referential content,
commentary of a personal nature, and the repetition of subjective points. Teachers using the facilitator-fronted
strategy tend to impose longer wait times for student responses, thus allowing reticent students more time to
formulate responses. Garton (2002) that EFL teachers using the preferred facilitator-fronted strategy to teach
speaking were able to break free of the obvious constraints of the IRF interaction pattern.
In sum, the essential role of teachers in the EFL classroom is to provide students of English speaking with
learning opportunities. The role of teachers in the EFL classroom directly influences students because teachers
have the power to control and direct the content and the procedures used to learn. They act as facilitators,
counselors, and authoritative resources for their students. Teachers must make a personal connection between
what students need to learn in order to speak and scaffold every effort students attempt until they are ready to
learn interdependently. Teachers can also personalize the learning experience in such a way that engages students
to participate and create the need to speak. Teachers are the best resource for fulfilling the vital task of
overcoming reticence in the EFL classroom.

6. Roles of Students in the Asian EFL Classroom

Students learn speaking by engaging in tasks because the focus is on process rather than on product. Thus, the
various tasks that students engage in will dictate the role they will take on in the EFL classroom, in general, and
during communicative interactions in particular (Lee, & VanPatten, 2003). This orienting role taken by the
student in the EFL classroom may be clearly defined as an application of the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1985)
which assumes language learners as interactive participants who engage in a shared attempt to communicate in a
target language. Students in the EFL classroom are expected to learn-by-doing and challenge the paradigmatic
boundaries of their previous language learning experience. Richard-Amato (1996) indicated that EFL students
who did classroom interaction are affected and often changed by the contact and by the total social situation
surrounding it. However, Richard-Amato was quick to add, More often than not, students play only passive or
superficial roles in the events in the classroom (p. xii). The implication of this last remark is that more effort
needs to be expended in making the EFL student autonomous and which teachers will have to take responsibility
to make this happen.
The initial role of the language learner in a classroom is to follow the teachers direction. Traditionally, students
are expected to become increasingly independent as a logical outcome of the learning process. However,
autonomy in the EFL classroom does not imply full independence of the student from the teacher. Instead,
students are expected to become interdependent on peers and teachers alike to scaffold their classroom progress
and intercede on their behalf when they need help or encouragement. Larsen-Freeman (1986) identified the
sequential movement of this dependent-to-mutual-interdependency role through five recognizable stages. In
Stages I, II, and III, students assumed a supported role that required the teachers scaffolding and intervention
classroom instruction. In Stages IV and V, teachers relaxed this directed role, allowing students to benefit from
increased self-assurance, overall corrections, and a focus on the students role as an accurate speaker.
Typically, students are expected to play the roles of listeners, performers, and interactors while speaking in the
language classroom (Nunan, 1999). When teachers choose to use the CLT in the EFL classroom, emphasis
should be placed on the processes of communication, rather than keep the form of a language which influences
learner roles (Richards, & Rodgers, 2001). The stated purpose of communicative language teaching is to facilitate
rather than to hinder language production and acquisition. The achievement of understanding and being
understood is of greater importance than proper grammatical structure as long as the input and the output are
meaningful (Krashen, 1985). Students also act as negotiators in the language process.

43

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

Vol. 4, No. 6; April 2014

Breen and Candlin (1980) described the language learners role as negotiators in the EFL classroom by accepting
shared responsibility for the interaction by stating:
The role of the learner as negotiator between the self, the learning process, and the object of learning
emerges from and interacts with the role of joint negotiator within the group and within the classroom
procedures and activities which the group undertakes. The implication for the learner is that he should
contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn an interdependent way (p. 110).
The proposed role of joint negotiation between the instructor and the learners in answering the question would
be to recognize that communication is a shared concern in which successful communication is a shared
accomplishment, jointly shared and openly acknowledged.
A similar study, Gass (1997) found that language learners should be expected to take individual responsibility for
their own speaking by negotiating the flow and the quality of input directed to them whenever engaged in some
kind of discourse. Lee (2000; cited in VanPatten, & Lee, 2003) offered the following components of negotiation
in a speaking context:
Negotiation consists of interactions during which speakers come to terms, reach an agreement, make
agreements, resolve a problem, or settle an issue by conferring or discussing; the purpose of language use
is to accomplish some task rather than to practice any particular language forms (p. 65).
Negotiation is required for successful communication to occur, for conversations to progress naturally, and for
speakers to be able to understand one another. It helps speakers and listeners to understand each others
expressions and ideas.
Roberts and Ching (2011) indicated that students in different majors displayed different views, strategies and
practices representing a blending of contradictory positions and discourses. These differences require the teacher
to adapt the lesson to match a wide range of priorities and expectations. Liu (2001) asserted that students coming
from different learning styles displayed different modes of classroom behavior that are culturally specific.
Learners carry their own conceptions of what is appropriate behavior to the classroom, which may be entirely at
odds with their teachers expectations. They will have to realize the need to develop multiple personalities in the
learning community so that they consider active participation as an opportunity to achieve their own cultural
transformation. Students at different English speaking proficiency levels displayed different challenges to instruct,
so teachers may take advantage of class size to get quiet or less-proficient students to speak. Accordingly, large
classes afford ample opportunities for cooperative, interdependent learning to take place.
In sum, the role that students assume in the EFL classroom has a great deal to do with their success in English
speaking. The various tasks that students engage in will dictate the role they will take on. In the beginning, the
initial role of the language student is to follow the teachers direction. Students are expected to play the roles of
listeners, performers, and interactors whenever speaking in the language classroom. They also are supposed to act
as negotiators in the language process because of their mutual acceptance of a shared responsibility for the
communicative interaction taking place. Finally, the most important role that an EFL student may assume is to be
an interactive participant who becomes increasingly independent though the learning process.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

In light of the above given research findings, it is strongly believed that curriculum developers, educators, and
administrators need to make a number of changes in their overall approach to the explicit and implicit teaching
process with a view of creating the ideal learning environment in their schools:
-

44

Become more willing to participate in English activities outside the classroom because the
teacher regularly encouraged them to do so
Make inquiry about what they were planning to do outside the class that week. Such inquiry
became a regular part of the classroom discussion.
Insure that the discussion topics are creative since the classroom mix of videos, songs, role play,
and self-selected presentations promotes regular inclusion and participation.
Provide students with numerous opportunities of intercultural exploration.When students
encounter new cultural aspects or reflect on their own culture through the perception of foreign
eyes, it is possible to gain their interest.

 Center for Promoting Ideas, USA

www.ijhssnet.com

The English speaking curriculum design should be meaningful and inspiring for students. For most EFL students,
reticence in the classroom is a result of habitual behaviors that are culturally-based and institutional in nature
(Tsui, 1996). Many students at Taiwanese colleges now face direct inclusion into a classroom environment that is
Western in its pedagogical premise due to the influence of globalized higher education. Liu (2009) approved that
students should become more aware of the practical importance of English in their daily lives and become anxious
to have a good command of spoken English.
Finally, to achieve the purposes of both implicit and explicit EFL language speaking instruction, the English
speaking curriculum should be designed with two major principles in mind. The first principle is to expose
students to authentic and practical settings for speaking English. The next principle is that teachers should
encourage students to be involved and actively participate in English speaking for communication in the
classroom. By doing so, communications between the teacher and students and the students and students may be
ultimately increased for the benefit of all.

References
Aoki, N. (1999). Affect and the role of teachers in the development of learner autonomy.In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in
language learning (pp. 142-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belchamber, R. (2008). The advantages of communicative language teaching.The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved
January 14, 2012, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Belchamber-CLT.html
Benson, P. (2001) Teaching &researching: Autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.
Breen, M.P.,& Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of acommunicative curriculum in language teaching.Applied
Linguistics,1(2), 89-112.
Brown, G., Malmkjr, K., & Williams, J. (Eds.) (1996).Performance & competence in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chambers, F.(1997). Seeking consensus in course-book evaluation.ELT Journal. 51(1), 27-54.
Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategieshandbook. White Plains,
NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chang, M. (2011).EFL teachers attitudes toward Communicative LanguageTeaching in a Taiwanese college.Asian
EFL Journal, 17-34.
Cheng, X.T. (2000). Asian students reticence revisited.System, 28(3), 435446.
Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved on February20, 2014,
from http://books.google.com/books?id=u0ksbFqagU8C
Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. (1991). Dealing with anxiety: Some practical activities for language learners and teacher
trainees. In E. K. Horwitz,& D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom
implications (pp. 141-150). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Debashish, B. (2010). Asian students' perceived passivity in the ESL/EFLclassroom. Language in India, 10(10), 150-179.
Drnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
Garton, S. (2002).Learner initiative in language classrooms.ELT Journal, 56(1), 47-55.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use.System, 31, 367-383.
Ho, J., & Crookall, D. (1995). Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner autonomy in English language
teaching.System, 23 (2), 235-243.
Holec, H. (1981).Autonomy and foreign language learning.Oxford, (UK): Pergamon.
Holec, H. (1985). On autonomy: Some elementary concepts. In P. Riley (Ed.), Discourse and learning (pp. 173-190).
London: Longman.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293).
Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Jackson, J. (2003). Case-based learning and reticence in a bilingual context: Perceptions of business students in Hong
Kong. System,31 (4), 457-469.
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design & methodology. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985).The input hypothesis.London: Longman
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques & principles in language teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

45

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

Vol. 4, No. 6; April 2014

Lee, W.,& Ng, S. (2010). Reducing student reticence through teacher interaction strategy.ELT Journal Advance
Access.doi:10. 1093/elt/ccp080.
Lee, J. F., &VanPatten, B. (2003).Making communicative language teaching happen. Taipei: McGraw-Hill International.
Li, X., &Jia, X. (2006).Why dont you speak up?: East Asian Students Participation patterns in American and Chinese
ESL classrooms. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(1), 192-206.
Littlewood, W. (1981).Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Liu, J. (2001). Asian students classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities: An emic perspective. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Publishing.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass,& C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 649-666.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification.
Language Learning, 39, 251-275.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994).The subtle effects of language anxiety oncognitive processing in the second
language.Language Learning, 44,283-305.
Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009) Teaching ESL / EFL listening and speaking. New York: Routledge.
Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. S. (1978).The achievement and antecedents of labeling.Journal of Child Language, 5, 1-15.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA.:Heinle&Heinle.
Pierson, H. (1996). Learner culture and learner autonomy in the Hong Kong Chinese context. In R. Pemberton, E. Li,
W. Or, & H. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 49-60). Hong Kong: HK
University Press.
Rao, Z. (2000). Chinese students perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in the EFL
classroom.System, 30, 85-105.
Reber, A. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic learners: the role of the instructional set. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, Human Learning and Memory, 6, 88-94.
Richard-Amato, P. A. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom: From theory to practice.
White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.
Richards, J. C.,& Renandya, W.A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice.
Ambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nded.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C.,& Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Ltd.
Roberts, A., & Ching, R. (2011).Concepts, contributions, and challenges of the contemporary university community in
Taiwan. In J.D. Palmer, A. Roberts, Y.H. Cho, & G.S. Ching (Eds.), The internationalization of East Asian
higher education: globalizations impact (pp. 41-62). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Seliger, H.W. (1975). Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-18.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Arnold.
Tsou, W. L. (2005). Improving speaking skills through instruction in oral classroomparticipation.Language Annals,
38(1), 4655.
Tsui, A.B.M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K.M.Bailey,& D. Nunan (Eds.),Voices
from the language classroom(pp. 145-167). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Voller, P. (1997). Does the teacher have a role in autonomous language learning? In P. Benson, & P. Voller (Eds.),
Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 98-113). London: Longman.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Watkins, D.,& Biggs, J. (Eds.)(2001). Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives.
Hong Kong: Central Printing Press.
Wolff, D. (1994). New approaches to language teaching: An overview (Vol. 39, CLCS Occasional Paper). Dublin:
Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. Taipei: McGraw-Hill Education.
Wu, W. S. (2006). A study of the views of EFL university English-major students and native English-speaking
teachers towards conversation classes in Taiwan.Journal of National Formosa University, 95-104.

46