Indonesian EFL Journal, Volume 1 (1) January 2015ISSN 2252-7427
EXPLICIT BACK-CHANNEL STRATEGY TRAINING AND IMPROVEMENT

OF SPEAKING SKILL: CASE OF IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS

MalihehYazdfazeliEnglish Department, Islamic Azad University, Torbat-e Heydarieh Branch, IranEmail:Maliheh.yazdfazeli66@gmail.com
Khalil Motallebzadeh

English Department, Islamic Azad University, Torbat-e-Heydarieh Branch, IranEmail: k.motalleb@iautorbat.ac.ir; kmotallebz@gmail.com
Mohammad Ali Fatemi

English Department, Islamic Azad University, Torbat-e-Heydarieh Branch, IranEmail: Fatemi35@gmail.comAPA Citation: Yazdfazeli, M. Motallebzadeh, K., Fatemi, M. A. (2015). Explicit back-channel strategy trainingand improvement of speaking skill: case of Iranian EFL learners. Indonesian EFL Journal 1(1), 17-26Received: 13-7-2014 Accepted: 22-09-2014 Published: 01-01-2015
Abstract: This study explores the effect of explicit back-channel strategy training on Iranian EFL languagelearners’ success in speaking skill. Back-channels are turn taking responses uttered by the listeners. Fortyhomogenous learners (20 male, 20 female) were randomly assigned to four groups (2 experimental, 2 control).They were at intermediate level in terms of general English proficiency based on the results of Oxford PlacementTest (OPT) and pre-test oral Proficiency Interview. After 18 sessions of treatment of back-channels forexperimental groups, that were based on the methodological theory of English language teaching suggested byDoff (1990) and Harmer (1991), post- test oral proficiency test was administered for experimental and controlgroups. The findings of pretest and posttest oral exams revealed that EFL language learners’ oral performance(speaking) in experimental groups improved. The result revealed that females employed back-channels moreoften than males when they were participating in a conversation. The type of back-channel both gendersemployed the most was short utterances, such as ‘yes’, and the most used function of back-channel was requestfor clarification. The results of this thesis will provide language teachers, EFL language learners, researchers,material developers, and readers, useful information about the types and functions of back channels that areneeded to develop speaking ability appropriately through explicit teaching.
Keywords: back channel strategy, communication strategy, explicit training

INTRODUCTIONUsually we believe that speakers arecontrolling each conversation and they playan active role, but actually their partners-listeners do not listen to speakers' wordspassively; on the contrary, they have to digestthose words within the context using theircognitive knowledge, and to think about whatthey must answer next. Thus, we may say in acollaborative conversation, listeners also playa big role Tao & Thompson (1991).Tao & Thompson (1991) believed thatlisteners have to show that they are listening,they ask questions about the content of thespeaker's talk, and they make contributionsthat are relevant to the content of thespeaker's talk. Eye contact, head nods, smiles,and body alignment all help to tell us whether

or not the recipienthas answered oursummons and is attending to our message.Among them, Back Channeling (BC) is one ofthe well-used communication strategies.Based on Sharifi and Azadmanesh (2012),participants of a conversation give and takeback channels as a way of transforminginformation about the state of communication,for instance to show attention, understanding,misunderstanding, acceptance or non-acceptance, in order to make communicationmore efficient.According to Wannarak (1997), thephenomenon of BC was first studied by Friesin 1952. He identified BC as conversationalsignals of attention to continue discourse. Heanalyzed a corpus of telephone conversationsand recognized them as series of ‘listener
17



MalihehYazdfazeli, Khalil Motallebzadeh & Mohammad Ali Fatemi
Explicit Back-Channel Strategy Training and Improvement of Speaking Skill: Case of Iranian EFL Learners

response’. About two decades after Fries,Yngve (1970) was the first person who coinedthe term back channel to describe thisphenomenon. As a result of these findings,particular attention was paid to the scientificexamination of these back channel responsesor short utterances.According to Petchrat (2009),researchers defined BC variously. Forexample, Duncan (1972, p.14) defined it as“short expressions, such as uh-huh or mm-hm,uttered by listeners to convey that they arepaying attention, and to encourage thespeaker to continue”. However, Yule (1996)believe that Back Channel refers to thosevocalizations in a conversation, short wordsand phrases such asyeah, no, right, and sure(Yule, 1996). Among these several definitions,the essential shared characteristic of a backchannel is that it originates from the personwho is playing the role of a listener.Tao & Thompson (1991) expressed thatin all language communities, listeners areexpected to provide appropriate back-channeling signals for interlocutors toindicate that they are listening. In face-to-facecommunications, listeners' back channeling isvirtually continuous in verbal, non-verbal,and semi-verbal ways. Without appropriateback channeling, a conversation is likely tobreak down or simply stop, since the speakeris unsure that the listener is activelyattending to and interpreting the discourse.As a result of reviewing these, we canconsider the lack of a study on BC in IranianEFL classes. Thereby, the researchers try toinvestigate the effect of employing BCstrategy on Iranian EFL intermediatelearners’ success in speaking skill byexplicitly teaching them this strategy. Thegoal is to provide qualitative data for thespeaking skill improvement of EFL learnerswho employed BC strategy. This research alsoaims at providing quantitative datacomparing the use of back channeling withsuccess in speaking skill by male and femalelearners.In human communication behavior,back channel responses are pervasivephenomena. Participants of a conversationgive and take back channels as a way oftransforming information about the state of

communication. The study of back channel isa new investigation of spoken language. Fries(1952) is the first author who has noticed anddescribed some of the communicativebehaviors that nowadays we call them "backchannels". He analyzed a corpus of telephoneconversations and recognized as series of"listener response". Yngve (1970) was thefirst person who coined the term backchannel to describe these tokens. As a resultof these findings, particular attention waspaid to the scientific examination of theseback channel responses or short utterances.Researchers have identified that thereare differences in the frequency, type, usage,and placement of back channels acrosslanguages. Tao & Thompson (1991) in theirstudy found that English speakers had ahigher frequency of back channel responsesthan Chinese speakers. White (1997)examines the effects of Japanese versusAmerican culture on the production of back-channel responses. White (1997) finds thatfundamental cultural differences between theUnited States and Japan, regarding politenessand face concerns, are responsible for thedifferences he finds among the usage andfunctions of back-channel responses by themembers of the two cultures. Thesedifferences are not confined to unrelatedlanguages, even in languages with similarcultures and histories, these differences areobvious.Inversely Li (2006) studied Chinese andCanadian speech and reported that listenermade more back channel responses, whetherthe Chinese talked with another Chinese orwith a Canadian. He found that Chinese/Chinese group exhibited the highestfrequency of back channel responses, theCanadian/ Canadian group the lowest, withthe two inter-cultural groups in between. Kim(2009) discussed the importance ofcomparative studies of Korean and Japaneselinguistics behavior and examined the usageof back channel responses and pause fillers inthese groups. He concluded that while Koreanspeakers used pause fillers more frequentlythan back channels, the Japanese speakerused back channels more frequently thanpause fillers. He concluded that the role of thelistener is more important in Japanese while
18



Indonesian EFL Journal, Volume 1 (1) January 2015ISSN 2252-7427
the role of the speaker is more emphasized inKorean.Li et al. (2010) extended his previousstudies and examined the types of backchannel responses and their relationship withspeaker presentation, listener recall, andparticipants' perceived enjoyment of theinter-cultural conversations. They found anegative correlation between the frequencyof back channel responses and enjoyment ofthe conversation.According to Sharifi &Azadmanesh(2012) scholars addressed the transfer ofback channel behaviors in bilingual speakerswithin the accommodation theory framework. Accommodation theory offers a soundframework for the study of conversationalstrategies in interpersonal encounters.Therefore, the balanced bilingual speakertends to converge with other native speakersof their first language when they are engagedin a friendly conversation.Heinz (2003) examined the differencesof back channel behavior in interactionsbetween monolingual and bilingual Germans.He found significant differences in thefrequency and placement of back channelresponses among monolingual Germanspeakers and monolingual American Englishspeakers. The author also reported thatnative Germans, who have become proficientin American English, use more back channelresponses and more often in overlappingpositions than monolingual Germans do.These results show a contradiction ofaccommodation theory, but the findings of Li(2006) study provided a support foraccommodation theory, which stated thatChinese and Canadian speakers had atendency to converge their linguistics codesin conversation. Also, Tao & Thompson (1991)earlier had reported that native Chinese whowere fluent in English had a tendency toswitch codes, using English back channelresponses.Numerous linguistic researchers, suchas Mott (1995), have examined the effects ofgender on the production of back-channelresponses. Forbes and Cordella (1999: 282)define back-channeling in the following way:"...a participant communicates agreementwith the speaker without interrupting their

turn. These short utterances reflectappreciation of what is being said."Bilous (1988: 186) defines back-channelresponses as follows: "...brief vocal responses('uh-huh', 'yes', 'I see', etc.) by the nominallistener, which do not constitute an attemptto take the conversational floor."(p.186) Inhis study, Bilous (1988) finds that femaleundergraduate students at ColumbiaUniversity have a higher frequency of back-channel responses than do maleundergraduate students at ColumbiaUniversity (p.188).Coates (2003), in summing previousresearch works states that women are said tobe more polite, more cooperative and madeuse of more back channels in conversationthan men. Men, on the other hand, are said tofollow strategies of non-cooperative,including interruption and less back channels.Previous studies of gender differences werein disagreement with the claims of Coates(2003). Dixon & Foster (1998) reported thatmen use more supporting back channelsignals than women do when addressing afemale audience in South Africa.Besides the effects of language, cultureand gender, different communicative contextor different styles of speech had an influenceon the back channel behavior. AccordinglyKok&Heylen (2010) compared the listeners'behaviors elicited by procedural andnarrative tasks. The results of this studyshowed that long procedural tasks elicitedmore responses than the short tasks, due tothe cognitive load of the interlocutors.Furthermore, Angles et al. (2000) referred tothe influence of the level of formality andasserted that Japanese tokens hai ,ee , and unare used in different context, hai , and ee areused in informal context, while un is usedwith casual speech style.Therefore, back channel responses are apervasive feature of conversations and as alistener; we must have the ability to produceback channels timely and appropriately. It hasbeen long assumed that there are some placesin the dialog where back channels arewelcomed. For example, Ward &Tesukahara(2000) have truly claimed that speakers' cuesaccounted for about half of the occurrences ofback channels, suggesting that back channel
19



MalihehYazdfazeli, Khalil Motallebzadeh & Mohammad Ali Fatemi
Explicit Back-Channel Strategy Training and Improvement of Speaking Skill: Case of Iranian EFL Learners

responses are not elicited whenever thelistener liked them, but are encouraged by thecurrent speaker. Ward (1996) believed that alow pitch region is an important cue for backchanneling production in Japanese.Accordingly, he suggested a well-madesystem, which produces a back channel itemafter a low pitch region of a certain frequency.Ward & Al Bayyari (2007) have alsointroduced various prosodic features in thespeakers' speech signaling the appropriatetimes of back channeling in Egyptian Arabic,including a pitch upturn at the phrasal end,low flat pitch associated with a lengthenedvowel at dis-fluency points, and a sharp pitchdownslope.There are a large number of studies ofback channeling focusing on back channels incross-cultural conversations, in the samecultural context but different situations, indifferent cultural contexts, genders andchannels. We can consider the lack of a studyon BC in Iranian EFL classes. Thus, this studyattempts to investigate the effect ofemploying BC strategy on Iranian EFLintermediate learners’ success in speakingskill by explicitly teaching them this strategy.The goal is to provide qualitative data aboutthe speaking skill improvement of EFLlearners who employed BC strategy. Thisresearch also aims to provide quantitativedata and finding salient differences in backchannel behavior and success in speakingskill by male and female learners.To find answers for the above mentionedproblems, the following research questionswere posed:Q1: Does explicit teaching of back-channelstrategy have any significant effect on IranianEFL intermediate learners’ success inspeaking skill?Q2: Are there any significant differences betweenmale and female Iranian EFL intermediatelearners’ success in speaking skill when theyreceive explicit teaching of back-channelstrategy and employ it?Q3: Are there any significant differences in back-channel behavior between male and femaleIranian EFL intermediate learners before andafter treatment?To come up with reasonable results onthe basis of the aforementioned research

questions, the following null hypothesizewere proposed:H01: Explicit teaching of back channel strategydoes not have any significant effect on IranianEFL intermediate learners’ success inspeaking skill.H02: There are no significant differences betweenmale and female Iranian EFL intermediatelearners’ success in speaking skill when theyreceive explicit teaching of backchannelstrategy and employ it?H03: There are no significant differences in backchannel behavior between male and femaleIranian EFL intermediate learners before andafter treatment.
METHODIn this study, the researchers selected 40intermediate EFL learners (20 male, 20female) from Dar Al- Elm Language Center inMashhad, Iran. Then both male and femaleparticipants were divided into four groups. Asa result of this division, the researchers had 2experimental groups which included 20learners (10 male, 10 female). And the otherparticipants (10 male, 10 female) were in twocontrol groups.Before the selection based OxfordPlacement Test (OPT), the numbers ofparticipants were 80. All of them took the testwhich was administered by the institution inorder to place them at the stage of theeducational program most appropriate totheir abilities but 40 proved to be proficientenough to be included in the study. Therefore,researchers were sure of the homogeneity ofthe participants. As a result, all of theparticipants who took part in this researchwere at the same level of proficiency(Intermediate Level).Since OPT just consists of listening,vocabulary, reading and grammar sections, itwas necessary to run interviews to ensure thelearners’ homogeneity with regard to oralperformance. Therefore, all of the studentswere interviewed to make sure that theywere in real homogeneity of speaking skill.The D.L.C supervisor interviewed all of theparticipants, which was done face to face inten minutes for each individual. She used thequestions which were made by Tavakoli(2011) for intermediate EFL language

20



Indonesian EFL Journal, Volume 1 (1) January 2015ISSN 2252-7427
learners. The questions had high frequency ineveryday conversations, such as family, freetime, hobbies, field of study, etc. Theevaluation process of students’ speakingability was based on D.L.C guidelines.Then, with regard to the methodologicaltheory of English language teachingsuggested by Doff (1990) and Harmer (1991),back channel strategy was taught accordingto the following procedures:In presentation stage students wereintroduced with clear instruction about theBC strategy that they were going to study,including its meaning, its forms, and its use.Information handouts that contained phrasesand samples for the employment of thestrategies studied were given to the students.In this phase, based on Richards (1990) andDornyei and Thurrell (1994), (as cited inAhmad and Tarannum, 2011), theresearchers planed a conversation programaround this strategy, and processes that wereinvolved in fluent conversation to teach andemploy back channel strategies as aconversational strategies directly andexplicitly. Therefore, they tried to foster thestudents’ awareness of conversation and toincrease their sensitivity to the underlyingprocesses. In this way, the students are likelyto make much faster progress towardsbecoming relaxed and polishedconversationalists.Practice stage was the next step thatstudents were asked to do some tasks topractice using the strategy either in isolationor in given contexts. First of all, theresearchers asked students to watch Farsimovies or listen to their family conversationsand transcribe and highlight its back channels.In this way, they became completely aware ofthis strategy in their native language andcasual conversations. Then the researcherscreated situations for EFL learners ofexperimental groups to repeatedly listen toaudio files and also watch English nativelanguage movies to observe and also discoverthe patterns of back channeling. They alsoasked the students to transcribe and highlightthe back channels as their homework. Theyalso created opportunities for learners inexperimental groups to practice both roles:active listening by producing back channels

appropriately, and engaging talk by providingclear opportunities for the listener to backchannel. In other words, they let the studentsthat they themselves choose a topic based ontheir interest for their class discussion andconversations. Most of the speaking taskswhich the students undertook were thoserelevant to every day situation such asintroducing oneself to other people, shopping,talking on the phone, talking about last nightparty, technology, and living abroad. As aresult of this part, the participants becamerelax and could practice and take both roles.In this phase, the students could use theinformation handouts for reference.In production stage, the students wererequired to manage the tasks either throughinteracting with fellow candidate or throughdiscussion by themselves without any helpfrom the teacher or the handouts. In thisstage, the students were encouraged to dotheir best to use the language as individuals.As for the participants in the controlgroup, no special material was designed forhandling the class and the teachers, who werethe researchers themselves, went through thenormal routine procedure of teaching thematerials available for the course in theinstitute.After 18 sessions of treatment (eachsession one hour) oral proficiency test wasadministered by another teacher forexperimental and control groups. It was inconversational form with fellow candidates inorder to elicit language that is moreappropriate. According to Hughes (2003), anadvantage of having candidates interact witheach other is that it should elicit language thatis appropriate to exchange between equals.As he adds, it may elicit better performance inas much as the candidates may feel moreconfident than when dealing with a dominant,seemingly omniscient interviewer. Theaverage time for oral proficiency interviewwhich was administered at the end of theresearch was about 10 minutes. The teacherused topics which were in relation withtextbook materials.Finally, the researchers recorded all ofthe conversations and transcribed them inorder to achieve her goals. The researcherscompared the scores which were obtained
21



MalihehYazdfazeli, Khalil Motallebzadeh & Mohammad Ali Fatemi
Explicit Back-Channel Strategy Training and Improvement of Speaking Skill: Case of Iranian EFL Learners

through DLC guidelines for evaluatingstudents in order to find out whetheremploying back channel strategies have anysignificant effects on success in speaking skillof language learners or if there is anysignificant differences between success inspeaking skill of male and female EFLintermediate learners when they employ backchannel strategies, and whether employingback channel strategies among male and

female language learners are different basedon their types, functions, and frequency of use.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONIn order to answer the researchquestions the SPSS software was run to carryout the analyses. Results obtained from theanalyses are demonstrated as follows, and theresearchers have tried to address researchquestions and research hypotheses.

Table 1. Group statistics for male control and experimental groups
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Meancontrolexprimental 1010 71.0080.00 5.6766.782 1.7952.145

Table 2. Independent samples test for male control and experimental groupsLevene's Test forEquality ofVariances t-test for Equality of MeansF Sig. t Df Sig.(2-tailed) MeanDifference Std. ErrorDifference 95% ConfidenceInterval of theDifference
.000 1.000 -3.218

-3.218
18
17.458

.005

.005
-9.000
-9.000

2.797
2.797

Lower-14.876
-14.889

Upper-3.124
-3.111

EqualvariancesassumedEqualvariancesnot assumed
As table 1 and 2 reveal, using an alphalevel of .05, an independent-samples t testwas conducted to evaluate whether malecontrol and experimental groups differedsignificantly or no. The test was significant, t(17.458) = 3.21, p = .05. The 95% confidenceinterval of the difference ranged from -14.889to -3.111. An examination of the groupsmeans indicate that experimental group (M =

80.00, SD = 6.782) performed significantlybetter than did control group (M = 71.00, SD =5.676). As the results show, research questionnumber 1 was accepted because training backchannel strategy explicitly could improveIranian male EFL intermediate learners’speaking skill and it had significant effect ontheir success. And therefore, null hypothesis 1was rejected.
Table 3. Group statistics for female control and experimental groups

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Meancontrolexperimental 1010 75.7083.20 7.5437.997 2.3852.529

22



Indonesian EFL Journal, Volume 1 (1) January 2015ISSN 2252-7427
Table 4. Independent samples test for female control and experimental groupsLevene's Testfor Equality ofVariances t-test for Equality of MeansF Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) MeanDifference Std. ErrorDifference 95% ConfidenceInterval of theDifference

.200 .660 -2.157 18
17.939

.045

.045
-7.500
-7.500

3.476
3.476

Lower-14.804
-14.805

Upper-.196
-.195Equal variancesassumedEqual variances notassumed -2.157

As shown in table 3 and 4, the testwas significant, t (17.939) = 2.157, p = 0.045.The 95% confidence interval of the differenceranged from -14.805 to -.195. An examinationof the groups means indicate thatexperimental group (M = 83.20, SD = 7.997)performed significantly better than didcontrol group (M = 75.70, SD = 7.543).Because of this, the researchers concludedthat there were statistically significant

differences between the two groups. Thismeans that the differences were due to thechanges. As result shows, research questionnumber 1 was accepted because training backchannel strategy explicitly could improveIranian female EFL intermediate learners’speaking skill and it had significant effect ontheir success. And therefore, null hypothesis 1was rejected.
Table 5. Group statistics among male and female experimental groups (oral proficiency score)Score N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error MeanOral proficiencyscore malefemale 1010 80.00083.200 6.78237.9972 2.14482.5289
Table 6 Independent samples test among male and female experimental groupsLevene'sTest forEquality ofVariances t-test for Equality of MeansF Sig. t Df Sig. (2-tailed) MeanDifference Std. ErrorDifference 95% ConfidenceInterval of theDifference.708 .411 -.965

-.965
18

17.532
.347
.348

-3.2000
-3.2000

3.3160
3.3160

Lower UpperEqualvariancesassumedEqualvariancesnotassumed

-10.1666 3.7666
-10.1799 3.7799

As shown in table 5 and 6, the testwas significant, t (17.532) = .965, p <.348. The95% confidence interval of the differenceranged from -10.1799 to 3.7799. Anexamination of the groups means indicatethat female (M = 83.200, SD = 7.997)performed significantly better than did male

(M = 80.000, SD = 6.7823). Because of this, theresearchers concluded that there werestatistically significant differences betweenthe two groups. This means that thedifferences were due to the changes. As resultshows, research question number 2 wasaccepted because training back channel
23



MalihehYazdfazeli, Khalil Motallebzadeh & Mohammad Ali Fatemi
Explicit Back-Channel Strategy Training and Improvement of Speaking Skill: Case of Iranian EFL Learners

strategy explicitly could improve Iranianfemale EFL intermediate learners’ speakingskill and it had significant effect on their success. And therefore, null hypothesis 2 wasrejected.
Table 7. Significance of differences among total categories of types of back channelsType Male and female Expected frequency df Sig. χ2Short utterancesSentence completionShort questionsBrief restatementLaughing and sighing

Total

83378810
182

36.4 4 .000 179.154

As can be seen in Table 7, there weresignificant differences between totalcategories of types of back channels used bymale and female EFL language learners (χ²=179.154, Sig= .000, p ‹ .05). The tableindicated that short utterances and shortquestions (N= 83, 78) were used more thanexpected (N= 36.4). The finding revealed thatwhile short utterances and short questionswere used more frequently; laughing andsighing, brief restatement and sentence

completion (N= 10, 8, 3) were used with fewfrequency. Sentence completion was the leastused types of back channels by both male andfemale language learners.Short utterances ˃ short questions ˃laughing and sighing ˃ brief restatement ˃sentence completion. Therefore, based on thisaspect of back channel behavior, researchquestion number 3 was accepted. And thethird null hypothesis was rejected.
Table 8. Significance of differences among total categories of functions of back channelscategory Male and female Expectedfrequency df Sig. χ2ContinuerDisplay understanding the contentRequest for clarificationAgreementDisplay emotional response

total

225843453
198

39.6 4 .000 93.162

According to Table 8, there weresignificant differences among total categoriesof functions of back channels used by maleand female EFL language learners (χ²=93.162,Sig= .000, p ‹ .05). The table revealed thatdisplay understanding the content, continuer,and agreement functions of back channels(N= 5, 22, 34) were used fewer than theexpected frequency (N= 39.6). But displayemotional response and request forclarification (N= 53, 84) were used more thanexpected (N= 39.6). In other words, they wereused more frequently. While request forclarification (N=84) was used with highestfrequency, display understanding the content(N=5) was the least used function of backchannels. In this way, research questionnumber 3 was accepted. The null hypothesis3 was rejected.

CONCLUSIONThe present investigation has shown thatback channels represent integral part of theEnglish speaking. Back channels are of varioustypes which indicate the listener’s attentionperforming several functions. Focusing on anyaccessible source of information mentioningback channels such as Petchrat (2009), theresearchers have found a few indexes in themprofoundly dealing with back channelsthemselves. Several books mention them onlymarginally, mostly presenting a definition ofback channels, usually categorized in turn-taking system articles, and various authorsdiscussing some issues connected with backchannels such as Dörnyei and Thurrell (1994)and Richards and Schmidt (2002). It has beendiscovered that there is no comprehensiveinsight on teaching back channels. In other
24



Indonesian EFL Journal, Volume 1 (1) January 2015ISSN 2252-7427
words, the researchers do not found indexes inbooks and internet articles in relation to theexplicitly teaching back channels whichinvolve directing student’s attention towardlearning back channel strategy in a highlystructured environment. It is teaching that isfocused on learning outcomes (improvementin speaking skill).The present work analyzes the effect ofexplicit teaching of back channels fromvarious viewpoints. Different aspects havebeen taken into account during theexamination, namely the effect of explicitteaching of back channels on EFL languagelearners’ success in speaking skill, differencesbetween male and female Iranian EFLintermediate learners’ success in speakingskill when they employ back channel strategy,and differences in back channel behavior (interm of types, functions and frequency of use)between male and female Iranian EFLintermediate learners.Concerning to the teaching of backchannels explicitly and its effect on the EFLlanguage learners’ success in speaking skill,the analysis of the collected data showed thatit had significant effect on Iranian EFLintermediate learners’ speaking skill andimprovement of this ability. This finding is inline with that of Dornyei (1995), Faerch andKasper (1983). According to Dornyei (1995),making learners more conscious of strategiesthat already exist in their repertoire could bevery helpful for them when they are lackspecific vocabulary items. Faerch and Kasper(1986) also stress the need to increaselearners' "meta-communicative awareness"concerning strategy use.With regard to the second aspect of thisexamination, the results of the analysis of thedata indicated that there was no significantdifference between male and femaleexperimental groups when they employedback channel strategy. The finding of thisstudy revealed that both male and femaleparticipants in experimental groupsimproved in speaking skill after explicitlytreatment of back channel strategy.The classification of types and functionsof back channels in the present work werebased on Hopper (1992) (as cited in Petchrat,2009), Maynard (1986) and Ohira (1994).

Concerning the frequency of types of backchannels, the present study showed that themost frequently used back channels wereshort utterances (Male=37, female=46),followed by short questions (Male=42,female=36), while less frequently used backchannels were sentence completion (Male=2,female=1), laughing and sighing (Male=3,female=7), and brief restatement (Male=4,female=4). The investigation showed thatthere was almost no difference in the choiceof types of back channel devices usedconcerning the gender of the EFL languagelearners. On the other hand, concerningdifferences between total categories of backchannels types used by male and female EFLlanguage learners, there were significantdifferences between them.In the case of back channels functions,the present study indicated that the mostfrequently used back channels were requestfor clarification, followed by emotionalresponse, while less frequently used backchannels were such as understanding thecontent, continuer, and agreement. Therewere no significant differences between maleand female in term of frequently usedfunction except for continuer and agreementrespectively. Therefore, male EFL languagelearners used this function of back channelmore than females.Based on the results, it can be stated thatback channels mainly serve as request forclarification. Back channels, serving as displayemotional response, play an important role inEnglish speaking as well. Back channels asagreement represent the third mostfrequently used function of all back channels.According to the results, continuer functionsof back channels were used fewer than theexpected frequency. And finally, displayunderstanding of the content was least usedfunction of back channels. But, in the case ofdifferences among total categories offunctions of back channels used by male andfemale EFL language learners, there weresignificant differences between them.
ReferencesAngles J. et al. (2000). Japanese responses hai, eeandun:yes, no, and beyond. Language of Communication,20, 55-86.

25



MalihehYazdfazeli, Khalil Motallebzadeh & Mohammad Ali Fatemi
Explicit Back-Channel Strategy Training and Improvement of Speaking Skill: Case of Iranian EFL Learners

Bilous, F. R. (1988). Dominance and accommodation inthe conversational behaviors of same and mixed-gender dyads. Language and Communication 8(3-4), 183-194.Chowdhury, S. A. & Tarannum, S. (2011). Speaking skill:
Teaching and learning. Retrieved from:htttp//www.pdffactory.comCoates, J. (2003). Women, men and languages, a
sociolinguistics account of gender differences in
languages. Harlow: Pearson education limited.Dixon J.A. & Foster D. H. (1998). Gender, social context,and back-channel responses. Journal of Social
Psychology, 138: 134-136.Doff, A. (1990). Teach English: A training course for
teachers. Teacher's handbook. Cambridge: CUP.Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability ofcommunication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(7),55-85.Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1994). Teachingconversational skills intensively: Course contentand rationale. ELT Journal, 48, 40.Duncan, D. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research,
methods, and theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Duncan, S, Jr. (1973). Some signals and rules for takingspeaking turns in conversations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 283-292.Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in
interlanguage communication. Harlow, England:Longman.Forbes, K & Cordella, M. (1999). The role of gender inchilean argumentative discourse. IRAL, 37(4).277-289.Harmer, J. (1991).The practice of English language
teaching. London: Longman.Heinz, B. (2003). Back-channel responses as strategicresponses in bilingual speakers’ conversations.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1113-1142Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone conversation. Indiana:Indiana University Press.Hughes, A. (2003).Testing for language teachers.Cambridge University Press.Kim, T-Y. (2009). The sociocultural interface between
ideal self and ought-to self: A case study of two
Korean students’ ESL motivation. In Z. Dörnyei & E.Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identities and
the L2 self (pp. 274-294). Bristol, England:Multilingual Matters.Kok I. & Heylen D. (2010). Differences in listenerresponses between procedural and narrativetasks, Proceedings of the 2nd International
Workshop on Social Signal Processing, Italy: 5-10.Li H.Z. et al. (2010). Back channel responses andenjoyment of the conversation: the more does notnecessarily mean the better. International Journal
of Psychological Studies, 2 : 25-35.Li, H. Z. (2006). Back-channel responses as misleadingfeedback in intercultural discourse. Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 35(2), 99-116.

Maynard, S. K. (1986). On back-channel behavior inJapanese and English casual conversation.
Linguistics, 24(6), 1079–1108Mott, H. (1995). Workplace interactions: Women'slinguistic behavior. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 14(3), 324-336.Ohira, K. (1998). Have you changed? Pragmatic transfer
of back-channel behavior by Japanese bilingual
speakers (Thesis doctoral). Urbana-Champaign,Illinois: University of Illinois.Petchrat, P. (2009). A study of back channel behavior of
clienteles in insurance telesales conversation(Master thesis). National Institute of DevelopmentAdministration.Richards, J. C. (1990). Conversationally speaking:Approaches to the teaching of conversation. In J. C.Richards (Ed.), The Language Teaching Matrix.New York: Cambridge University Press, 67–85.Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary
of language teaching and applied linguistics.Pearson Education.Sharifi, Sh., & Azadmanesh, M. (2012). Persian backchannel responses in formal versus informalcontexts. Linguistic Discovery 10(2), 109-118Thao, L. (2005). Communicative strategies in
interlanguage. Tasmania: University of TasmaniaTao, H., & Thompson, S.A. (1991). English back-channelsin Mandarin conversations: a case study ofsuperstratum pragmatic ‘interference’. Journal of
Pragmatics 16, 209-223.Tavakoli, M., & Vahid D. H., &Esteki, M. (2011). Theeffect of explicit strategy instruction on L2 oralproduction of iranian intermediate EFL learners:Focusing on accuracy, fluency and complexity.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5),989-997.Wannarak, A. (1997). Back-channel Behavior in Thai and
American Casual Telephone Conversations. Ph.D.dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, USA.Ward, N. (2007). The challenge of noun lexical speech
sound. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Ward, N., & Tsukahara, W. (2000). Prosodic featureswhich cue back-channel responses in English andJapanese. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1177-1207.Ward, N. (1999). Low-pitch regions as dialog signals?
Evidence from dialog-act and lexical correlates in
natural conversation. In: M. Swerts and J. Terken,eds., ESCA Workshop on Dialog and Prosody,83-88. Eindhoven: TUE-IPO.White, R. (1997). Back channelling, repair, pausing, andprivate speech. Applied Linguistics 18(3), 314-344.Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. InPapers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 567-577.Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress

26