Teaching Speaking Skills in Language Lessons: Process vs. Product Approach

This informal CPD article, ‘Teaching Speaking Skills in Language Lessons: Process vs. Product Approach’, was provided by International Language Experts, who organise language training for companies and individuals.

Teaching speaking skills in language lessons involves a complex interaction between instructional methods, lesson objectives, and teacher roles. One of the central debates in language pedagogy is the focus on process versus product when planning lessons. These approaches not only shape the content and flow of the lesson but also impact how speaking skills are developed and assessed. In both approaches, correction practices and the role of the teacher differ significantly, reflecting the ultimate goal of the learning activity—whether it prioritises fluent communication or the accuracy of language use.

Process-Oriented Approach to Speaking Activities

The process-oriented approach emphasises the journey of communication rather than the final outcome. In this approach, the goal is often to foster fluency, encourage student autonomy, and help learners develop their ability to express themselves in real-time without undue concern about errors. This reflects the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach, which prioritises meaningful communication over grammatical perfection (Richards, 2006).

In process-oriented activities, students are encouraged to engage in conversation or dialogue with minimal interruptions, allowing them to explore their thoughts, experiment with language, and build confidence in their speaking abilities. These activities often simulate real-life speaking situations, such as discussions, debates, or role-plays, where the emphasis is on achieving communicative goals rather than on linguistic accuracy (Harmer, 2007).

When the goal of the activity is fluency, correction is often delayed or minimised. Immediate correction, in this context, could hinder the flow of conversation, disrupt students' confidence, and detract from the communicative purpose of the task. Teachers play a more passive role during fluency-based activities, acting as facilitators or monitors rather than active participants in correcting student errors. The primary goal is to create an environment where students feel comfortable taking risks with language, which is seen as crucial for long-term speaking development (Thornbury, 2005).

Teacher’s Role in Process-Oriented Activities

In a process-oriented activity, the teacher’s role is primarily one of facilitator or guide. This means setting up the activity, providing clear instructions, and allowing students the freedom to interact with minimal interference. The teacher may step in only if communication completely breaks down or to provide gentle prompts if students get stuck. The teacher also monitors student interaction to provide feedback later, rather than interrupting the flow of communication (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). This kind of delayed feedback can be provided at the end of the activity, where the teacher can address common mistakes without undermining students' fluency practice.

Product-Oriented Approach to Speaking Activities

On the other hand, a product-oriented approach focuses on accuracy and the end result of speaking activities. Here, the objective is for students to produce language that is grammatically correct, well-structured, and clear. This approach is often used in preparation for exams or formal presentations, where linguistic precision is essential.

In product-oriented activities, such as structured speaking exercises or rehearsed presentations, error correction plays a more central role. Teachers may interrupt or provide immediate feedback to ensure that students are using the language correctly. The goal is to polish students' language skills so that they can deliver a final, error-free product. Such activities require teachers to adopt a more active role, often correcting mistakes as they arise and providing detailed feedback on accuracy (Ellis, 2009).

Teacher’s Role in Product-Oriented Activities

In a product-oriented lesson, the teacher's role shifts from facilitator to that of an instructor or coach. Here, the teacher provides more direct intervention, ensuring that students are practicing correct forms of language. Teachers may engage in modelling, demonstrating correct usage before asking students to produce it themselves, and giving immediate corrective feedback when errors are made. This form of feedback, often referred to as "explicit correction," helps learners internalise the correct forms and use them appropriately in future tasks (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).

For instance, if students are working on a formal presentation, the teacher may stop them mid-sentence to correct a mistake, particularly if it involves a critical aspect of language, such as tense or word order. This interruption is not viewed negatively within the product-oriented framework because the emphasis is on mastering accuracy before moving on to more complex tasks.

Balancing Process and Product Approaches

While both the process and product approaches have their merits, effective language instruction often involves a balance of the two. A lesson that begins with a process-oriented activity, where students engage in free speaking practice, might be followed by a product-oriented task that focuses on polishing specific language forms encountered during the freer practice. Teachers need to clearly define the objective of each task so that students understand when fluency or accuracy is the priority (Ur, 2012).

Linking Correction to the Aim of the Activity

The level and type of correction in speaking activities are closely linked to whether the activity is process- or product-oriented. In fluency-based tasks, teachers generally provide delayed feedback to maintain the natural flow of conversation. However, in accuracy-focused tasks, corrective feedback is often immediate and direct. Researchers argue that both types of feedback have their place in language instruction, depending on the lesson's objectives (Harmer, 2007).

For instance, Lyster and Ranta (1997) categorise corrective feedback into different types—explicit correction, recasts¹, and clarification requests—which can be used flexibly depending on the goal of the task. In process-oriented tasks, teachers may opt for recasts or clarification requests, as these do not disrupt the flow of communication. In product-oriented tasks, explicit correction or metalinguistic feedback may be more appropriate to ensure that students understand their errors.

Conclusion

Teaching speaking skills requires a delicate balance between focusing on the process of language use and the final product of accurate language production. The choice between process- and product-oriented activities will depend on the lesson’s objectives, with each approach requiring a different level of correction and teacher involvement. Ultimately, successful language teaching involves knowing when to prioritise fluency and when to emphasise accuracy, allowing students to develop both their communicative competence and linguistic precision.

We hope this article was helpful. For more information from International Language Experts, please visit their CPD Member Directory page. Alternatively, you can go to the CPD Industry Hubs for more articles, courses and events relevant to your Continuing Professional Development requirements.

Footnote:

[1] In this context, *recasts* refer to a type of corrective feedback used in language teaching. A recast occurs when a teacher implicitly corrects a learner's error by reformulating the learner's incorrect sentence or phrase in a grammatically correct way, without directly pointing out the mistake. This allows the conversation to continue naturally while still providing the correct form.

For example, if a learner says, "He go to the store," the teacher might respond by saying, "Yes, he goes to the store." The teacher corrects the verb ("go" to "goes") but without explicitly stating that the learner made an error.

Recasts are often used in process-oriented activities because they don't disrupt the flow of communication, making them a subtle way to provide correction while keeping the conversation going.

References:

• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. *L2 Journal*, 1(1), 3-18.
• Harmer, J. (2007). *The Practice of English Language Teaching* (4th ed.). Longman.
• Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). *How Languages are Learned* (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. *Studies in Second Language Acquisition*, 19(1), 37-66.
• Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press.
• Thornbury, S. (2005). *How to Teach Speaking*. Longman.
• Ur, P. (2012). *A Course in English Language Teaching* (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.