Practice-Oriented Paper
Verbal Classrooms: Fluency Activities
Through Structure Control Practice
José Domingo Cruz
Kitakyushu University
Stephen Paton
Fukuoka University
Kent Jones
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
This paper describes an approach based on the principles of Skill Acquisition Theory whichaims at helping students acquire spoken fluency and grammatical control through a systemof practice called the Verbal Classrooms approach. In this approach, students move fromthe most basic aspects of spoken language to complex structures through a series of dynamic
and dialogic activities. These activities encourage smoothness of speech, an increasing rateof speech, eye contact, and grammatical accuracy all in a fast-paced and lively classroom
environment. The results of a survey of 159 Japanese university students with beginner to
low-intermediate English proficiency who participated in the activities over several weeks isalso provided, showing evidence that the approach is both enjoyed and seen as effective byuniversity-age Japanese learners of English.
本論は、スキル習得理論に基づき、学習者の口頭言語の流暢性と文法制御習得の支援を目的とした実践システムである口頭教室アプローチの手法について解説する。このアプローチでは、学生は一連の動的で対話的な活動を通じて、口頭言
語の最も基本的な局面からより複雑な構造へと移行する。これらの活動は、速いペースで活気のある教室環境で、アイコンタクト、スピーチの流暢性、スピーチの速度、および文法の正確性のすべてにおける向上を促進する。また、数週間にわたり活動に参加した159人の日本人大学生の調査結果も提示され、このアプローチが大学生世代の日本人英語学習者にとって、楽しく効果的であると評価されてい4Verbal Classrooms, OCJSI 4, pages 4-20
ることの証拠を提示する。

Verbal Classrooms (VC) (Cruz, 2017) are exercises based around the concept ofStructure Control (SC). SC describes grammar-centered phrases and sentencesthat an instructor gives students for pair-based spoken exercises. These “structures”
start off as one- or two-word utterances but gradually progress towards longer,complex grammar structures and, eventually, independent conversations. Verbal
Classrooms are carried out within a dynamic, fast paced, speaking-centeredteaching and learning environment where Structure Control can be practiced.
Students are not required to use any materials such as textbooks or handouts, butinstead immediately practice, in pairs, short structures, and variations thereof,
that the instructor presents. Quick partner changes, rapid turn-taking, andan intense din as all students in the room engage in simultaneous interactive
exercises - these characterise the approach to language education that is describedthroughout this paper.

A Historical Positioning of Verbal Classrooms
Within Theory

The audiolingual method was a popular second language-teaching method in the
1940s and 50s. In his book Verbal Behavior, Skinner (1957) proposed that theact of learning a language was based on the function of reacting to verbal stimuli,
first as a receiver, and later as a producer. In other words, Skinner viewed language
learning as a behavior that could be reinforced. The audiolingual method had
this model of language learning at its foundation. Students were presented withcorrect examples of grammatical forms and were required to memorize them withno explicit instruction. The belief was that with sufficient and repeated exposure
to a structure, students would eventually be able to produce it spontaneously.
However, Chomsky (1959) criticized that view by stating that the act of speech
was far too complex, entailing the potential of generating an infinite number ofpatterns, and that a theory that viewed it as a simple stimulus and response would
be insufficient for effective linguistic development.
As a result of this analysis, language teaching methods that depended on a5

Cruz et al.

behaviorist model, such as the audiolingual method, fell from favor and were
replaced by more communicative techniques. Arguably the most famous ofthese, communicative language teaching (CLT), which emerged in the 1970s
and 1980s, proposed that communicative competence is more important
than grammatical accuracy. Communicative competence is defined by Canale
and Swain (1980) as the combination of three critical domains: grammaticalcompetence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. They
contended that, although an understanding of a grammatical structure wasimportant to language learning, an understanding of the appropriate context inwhich to use the structure was equally important.
There was also some speculation during the early stages of CLT that explicit
teaching and practice of grammar was unnecessary. Krashen’s (1977) famous
input hypothesis proposed that the key condition for language learning to takeplace was simply exposure to language input that was slightly above the learner’slevel of competence. From this it can be inferred that language immersion
programs like the ones found in Canadian public schools of the time period, inwhich anglophone children were taught regular class content in French without
explicit reference to the grammatical structures (Baeyer & Baeyer, 2002), would
be a perfect example of this theory being put into practice. However, Swain andLapkin (1991) found that students in these programs, though able to develop afunctional ability to comprehend and use the French language, often lacked thegrammatical competence that is a key aspect of communicative competence. This
led to a successful reform of the French immersion curriculum to include a focus
on form component that gave students explicit grammar instruction along withauthentic communication in French. The Verbal Classrooms method of language
teaching emerged from these fundamental developments in language teaching
and learning.

6Verbal Classrooms, OCJSI 4, pages 4-20

Foundational Theoretical Elements of Verbal
Classrooms: Skill Acquisition Theory and theGenerative Principle

As the development of the focus on form approach in Canadian French immersion
illustrates, although the communicative aspects of language learning are indeed
important, the formal grammatical aspects of the target language cannot beignored. To this day, however, questions remain concerning how to introduce andpractice grammatical forms in a way that facilitates the development of students’
overall communicative competence. DeKeyser (2007) adaptation of skill
acquisition theory (SAT) to the language-learning context provides a foundation
for the main principles of Verbal Classrooms that are explained in more specificdetail later in this paper. Fundamentally, SAT aims to provide meaningfulpractice to students through three distinct stages: the initial representation ofknowledge, initial changes in behavior, and the eventual spontaneous productionof the target language.
In the first stage, involving the initial representation of knowledge, theschemata of the Japanese university students’ four years of high school English
language study is activated. At this stage, students are not expected to use thelanguage competently, but they are primed for the use of the language throughstructured and controlled practice. In the second phase, characterized by initialchanges in behavior, students are given chances to use the structure in controlled
tasks that vary in their complexity and demands on the student’s linguistic
flexibility. Moreover, students are encouraged to combine structures to fulfill a
communicative purpose. In the final stage, students are asked to use what they
have practiced to complete a communicative task and are expected to produce
the language required to complete that task spontaneously.
It is important to note that some of the terminology that explains the stagesof SAT, especially “behavior”, hearkens back to the early behaviorist concepts
that defined the audiolingual method. This is because there are aspects of theaudiolingual method that are indeed useful, especially in the early stages ofacquiring a new structure. Controlled practice is effective in the initial stages
7

Cruz et al.

of learning for familiarizing students with the structures of the target language.
However, a critical break that SAT makes from the traditional audiolingual
method is that it emphasizes the importance of meaningful practice. DeKeyser(2007) makes the key distinction between language behavior and language-likebehavior. In order for the former to be achieved, there needs to be an element ofcommunicative purpose in the language activity.
One criticism of controlled practice is that it can be too limited in scope andnot take into account the vast variety of structures that can be used to achieve asingle communicative purpose (Chomsky, 1959). However, as Butzkamm andCaldwell’s (2009) generative principle illustrates, pattern practice can be extremely
effective because although the capacity to generate sentences is infinite, it canbe accomplished from the finite grammatical competence introduced throughpattern practice. Nonetheless, pattern practice should only be the initial stage inlanguage learning and students must move from pattern practice to more flexible
and communicative forms of language use.
In the following section, a detailed description of the Verbal Classrooms
method is given, highlighting its close connection to the theoreticalunderpinnings of skills acquisition theory. This will be followed by a discussionof the results of a survey which aimed to elicit student opinions about theeffectiveness of the approach in a modern-day Japanese university setting.

Outline of the Verbal Classrooms Approach

Verbal Classrooms are arranged physically such that students are seated in rows
from the front of the room to the back, facing each other in pairs. Target language
structures are written up on the board at the front of the room, which each pair
will practice in dialogue for around a minute at a time. Students in one row
will regularly move to the adjacent seat to create a new pair, with new language
structures often being introduced and practiced.
In the very first lesson, students are introduced to the seven basic subject
pronouns of I / You / He / She / It / We / They. In pairs, students practice saying
only these, in order, taking turns (Student A: “I”. Student B: “You”. Student A:“He”. Student B: “She”. Etc.) (Fig. 1). After a few rounds, students shift positions
8

Verbal Classrooms, OCJSI 4, pages 4-20

Figure 1. Seven Pronouns for Initial Verbal Classrooms Practices.
to create new pairs, and at the instructor’s prompt, they then carry out the same
exercise in the new pair for several more rounds. Fluency is promoted in thatstudents are required not only to memorise the order of these seven familiar
pronouns; they are also expected to establish and maintain eye contact, and notread from the board. They are encouraged to self- and peer-assess by seeing who
can respond fastest, maintain eye contact best, and say the pronouns in orderwith the fewest mistakes in the loudest voice. Thus, an interactional dialogic
classroom dynamic is established.
Having established these basic elements, grammar structures are introduced
which will begin to engage the students in cognitive processing of the language,
while still focusing on the development of fluency as the primary goal. A
simple two-word subject-verb structure comes next. The instructor writes the
conjugations of the ‘be’ verb on the board: I am / You are / He is / She is / It is /We are / They are (Fig. 2). Following the same procedures, students now alternate,taking turns, between these structures (Student A: “I am”. Student B: “You are”.
Student A: “He is”. Student B: “She is”. Etc.). Again, after several rounds throughthe list, students shift partners and cycle through the structure a few more times.
The ongoing partner changes ensure that they are constantly practicing withdifferent people, and are always fully engaged. Physical movement from seat9

Cruz et al.

Figure 2. (To) Be Conjugation
to seat keeps their minds refreshed. There are no opportunities for students todisengage, to check their phones, or to nap.
Similar structures that include only minimal conjugations can be practiced
at this early stage. I do / You do / He does / She does / It does / We do / Theydo, is one such example, as are conjugations of have/has, and simple verbs suchas I go / You go / He goes, etc. Reversing the ‘be’ and ‘do’ conjugations so as tocreate question structures is also an appropriate early variation (Am I? / Are you/ Is he? / Is she? Etc.).
Though these simple structures seem well below most university students’level, the positive effect of practicing them in this fashion should not be
underestimated. Despite having ‘knowledge’ of the rules of conjugations andsubject/verb agreement, even competent students are challenged by being
asked to maintain performance of the exercises in dialogue while maintaining
eye contact, clear enunciation, and quick response times without textual aids.
After a sufficient amount of practice, more words and/or variables are added tothe structures, such as adverbials, possessive pronouns, or object pronouns. As
structures become more complex, the other elements of Verbal Classrooms suchas eye contact and speed become more challenging.
After these initial foundational structures have been established, the10Verbal Classrooms, OCJSI 4, pages 4-20

Figure 3. (To) Be Conjugation with Adjective

Figure 4. (To) Be Conjugation Past Tense with Object Phrase
instructor can introduce complete clauses and sentences by adding adjectives
or appropriate nouns to create utterances as long as a three-, four-, or evenfive-words; something like “I am sleepy” or, “I go to school”. (Figures 3 and 4).
At this stage, the range and scope of possible example sentences from which
short exercises can be created is practically limitless, and variations on simple
statements can occupy as much time as a teacher deems appropriate.

11

Cruz et al.

Figure 5. Basic AQp with (To) Be

The Answer-Question Pattern

With the introduction of the Answer-Question pattern (AQp) the opportunity
to produce meaningful dialogue is created. On the board, the instructor writes
in two columns: On the left side are each pronoun’s sentence structures (suchas “I am”, “You are”, “He is”, etc.), and on the right are the matching question
forms (“Am I?”, “Are you?”, “Is he?”) (Fig. 5). Nothing new is being shown to thestudents here, but the manner in which it is applied will almost certainly be new,and can be interestingly difficult at first, especially if they have not had much
experience of interacting in English.
As illustrated in Figure 5, the AQp begins with the first sentence, “I am”,
and progresses down one row and to the right, to the question form of the next
pronoun. Thus, Student A’s utterance is: “I am, are you?”. Student B would
respond with the answer form of the “you” question: “You are”, and similarly
follow it by moving down and to the right so as to ask about “he”; thus - “Youare, is he?”. The response to this will be “He is, is she?”. The students are to givea sentence-form answer using the subject that was in their partner’s question(“I am, are you?” “You are, is he?” “He is, is she?” “She is, is it?” “It is, are we?”
“We are, are they?). The pattern continues and loops at, “They are, am I?”. Thiscan also be practiced with other variants such as do/does, have/has, and was/12

Verbal Classrooms, OCJSI 4, pages 4-20

Figure 6. AQp Regular Verb

Figure 7. AQp Regular Verb with Object Phrase
were. Later, structures with regular verbs can be introduced, with their auxiliaryverb-based question forms (“I have, do you have?” “You have, does he have?”)(Figure 6). After the simple AQp has been practiced sufficiently, more complex
structures, such as adverbials and objects can be introduced (“I study English
every day; do you study English every day?”) (Figure 7).
Finally, the example in Figure 8 is called a “double variable conjugation”,
where students must replace two variables in each of both the answer and thequestion.
13

Cruz et al.

Figure 8. AQp Double Variable Conjugation (simplified diagram)Student Perceptions of VC's EffectivenessIn 2019, one of the authors of this study implemented the VC approach as a warmup exercise in several university classes. Using little beyond the exercises that havebeen described above, the first 20-40 minutes of each weekly class was spent on
Verbal Classrooms exercises. Through around eight weeks of this, it appeared thatthe students were enjoying the exercises. They seemed highly engaged, and were
smiling and laughing while practicing the exercises together. Furthermore, they
appeared to the teacher to be making an effort towards performing the exerciseswith accuracy and speed.
Survey. To gain a better insight into student perceptions, a number of
research questions were posed which would allow us to determine whether ourobservations of the students’ enthusiasm while carrying out the class exercises
could be confirmed by the students’ responses about their experience.
1. To what extent are the students enjoying these exercises?
2. Do the students perceive and recognize educational benefits in doingthese exercises?
3. Would students prefer to do these exercises more, or less?
A mid-semester survey was prepared using Google Forms, which the students
answered on their smartphones during class. Anonymity was guaranteed, and14

Verbal Classrooms, OCJSI 4, pages 4-20

the students were informed (in Japanese) in a written disclaimer at the start ofthe survey that participation was optional, and that their answers would be used
not only to help decide the future direction of the class, but also to inform theirteacher’s research. The questions were presented in both English and Japanese.
The first and third research questions were asked more or less directly, but thesecond research question, regarding whether the students perceived educational
benefits, was examined in terms of the activities’ utility in developing not only
speaking ability but also familiarity with grammatical forms and rules. All survey
questions asked for responses on either four- or five-point Likert scales. It should
be noted that the exercises had been framed by this teacher as “drills” in his class,and thus that word appeared in the survey questions.
The survey was answered by 159 students at two universities in WesternJapan. They were from various faculties but were all enrolled in English classes
that focused on speaking skills.

Results of Survey

Question 1 sought to answer the first research question, namely the extent towhich the students actually enjoyed the exercises.
Figure 9 shows that eighty-nine percent of respondents reported enjoying
the exercises. This was higher than had been expected, even given their apparent

Figure 9. Q1 - Do you agree? “I enjoy doing these drills in class.”
15

Cruz et al.

Figure 10. Q2 - Do you agree? “I think these drills are useful practice for speaking English better.”enjoyment during the exercises. The concern that the students might not express
quite as enthusiastic an attitude towards the exercises in an anonymous survey as
they did when engaged in them with their peers was abated.
Question 2 was intended to answer the second research question in terms ofstudent perceptions of the exercises’ value as speaking practice.
Figure 10 shows that eighty-nine percent of respondents perceived the drills
as being useful for speaking practice.
Question 3 followed up by asking students whether they perceived benefits
from the exercises in gaining familiarity with English grammar.
A similar finding is shown in Figure 11, namely that eighty-eight percent
of respondents found the drills helpful in understanding grammar. This isa noteworthy result given that grammar study is not usually considered an
enjoyable task. It is a validation of the speaking-based approach to grammar
development.
Question 4 sought to inform the teacher’s planning for future lessons, and toserve as an evaluation of the decision to allow the drills to continue sometimes
upwards of thirty minutes.
The clear majority of students were happy with continuing to spend a sizable
proportion of the class time on these exercises. Only 17% of respondents wanted
16Verbal Classrooms, OCJSI 4, pages 4-20

Figure 11. Q3 – Do you agree? “I think these drills are useful practice for understanding English grammar better.”Figure 12. Q4 - Should we do more, or fewer drills in class?
to spend less than about 30 minutes on them each week. The teacher had been
allowing the drills to continue for a duration that the students deemed suitable.

Discussion of Survey Results

The survey was administered to help the teacher make plans for the remainder ofthe semester’s classes by ascertaining students’ perceptions of the value of Verbal
Classroom activities. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Students clearly17

Cruz et al.

enjoyed the approach and appeared to be seeing all the benefits of it that had
drawn the teacher towards implementing it in the class. Moreover, the students
saw the activities as very beneficial for developing their speaking skills and also
their understanding of grammatical forms.
These findings suggest that teachers can reasonably expect students tofind an approach such as this enjoyable and worthwhile. The extent to which
the approach helps to establish automaticity and fluency, however, cannot
be discerned from the present study. Future studies will aim at discerning theactual effectiveness of the approach by tracking student progress in both spoken
production and grammatical accuracy over a period of time in comparison to acontrol group.
Despite the Verbal Classroom approach’s obvious movement away from
Communicative Language Teaching, it should not be considered a regression
to audiolingual or behavioral methodologies, but rather an approach to fluency
that encompasses the best and most efficacious elements of Skill Acquisition
Theory. The close connections that the approach has with SAT, the tight focus
on short grammar structures, and the enjoyment and utility that students in the
study found in their experience of the exercises, all validate the approach as one
that teachers might well utilise to some extent in their classrooms.

References

Baeyer, C., and Baeyer, E. (2002). Three decades of French immersion in
Canada: Its beginnings, enduring popularity, and expected future. Bulletinof the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 62, 105–115.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42930608
Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J. (2009). The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift
in foreign language teaching. Narr Francke Attempto Verlag. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/304579219_The_Bilingual_Reform_A_
Paradigm_shift_in_Foreign_Language_Teaching
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1,
1–47. https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/I/1/1/181953?red
18

Verbal Classrooms, OCJSI 4, pages 4-20

irectedFrom=fulltext
Chomsky, N. (1959). A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. In N. Block(Ed.), Readings in philosophy of psychology (Volume 1, pp. 48-66). Harvard
University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674594623.toc
Cruz, J. D. (2017, March 29). Verbal classrooms demo class [Video Playlist].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPRLY1xK6EnzjyU120vRmBSlHOifgViEz
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied
linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press. DOI:
10.1017/CBO9780511667275.002
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. Brown,
C. Yorio & R. Crymes (Eds.). Teaching and learning English as a Second
Language: Trends in research and practice: On TESOL '77: Selected papers
from the eleventh annual convention of teachers of English to speakers ofother languages (pp. 144–158). Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Prentice-Hall.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1991) Additive bilingualism and French language
education. In A. Reynolds (Ed.), Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second
language learning (pp. 203–215). Taylor and Francis Group. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/additive-bilingualism-french-immersioneducation-roles-language-proficiency-literacy-merrill-swain-sharon-lapkin/e/10.4324/9781315807478-17

Author Bios:

José Domingo Cruz is a leading member of Online Teaching Japan (Facebook),
and the the author of Teaching with ZOOM 2, He is from Canada and is a veteran
university instructor, author, and public speaker, specializing in fluency instruction
authentic materials creation, and online education. jose@goldfish365.com
Stephen Paton (M.Ed, CELTA, Apple Distinguished Educator) taught English inAustralia before coming to Fukuoka, Japan, in 2008. stevepatonteacher@gmail.com
19

Cruz et al.

Kent Jones is a senior lecturer at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Beppu,
Japan. He has taught ESL at universities and colleges in Canada, as well as EFL
in universities in Japan. His curriculum development and research work are largely
related to writing, particularly feedback. joneske@apu.ac.jp
Received: October 29, 2021
Accepted: December 18, 2022

20