Alexander Cameron teaches at Fukuoka University, Japan. His professional interests include learner autonomy, self-regulated learning, and technology-mediated fluency practice in university English programs. He has developed multiple classroom projects that integrate digital tools to enhance learner confidence and ownership of spoken language.

 

The challenge

At my university, students in spoken English courses usually meet with their teacher once a week for a ninety-minute lesson. Within that time, we move through a mix of listening, reading, textbook work, and short conversation tasks. This structure keeps classes balanced, but it also means that sustained English speaking time can be limited.

During the free-conversation segments, I often noticed how easily students switched back to Japanese — sometimes because they felt unsure of what to say, and sometimes simply because they were enjoying a new partner or group in that week’s rotation. The social interaction was lively, but real spoken English practice often lasted only a few minutes at a time.

To extend students’ active use of English, I introduced a short weekly task outside class — a speech-contest-style recording activity in which students prepared and submitted a one-minute performance of a passage I chose from the course textbook. What began as a small experiment soon became a regular part of the course.

The task gave students extra time to produce spoken English independently — listening, rehearsing, and repeating until satisfied with their performance. In effect, they were fine-tuning their pronunciation and rhythm while gaining confidence in speaking clearly and naturally. Over time, this small weekly habit strengthened their ability to express themselves more fluently, both in and beyond the classroom.

 

The idea

Each week, I selected a short passage of around 120 words from the current textbook unit, and all students practised the same text. This made feedback more efficient, since I could focus on consistent pronunciation or rhythm patterns across submissions. Students listened to the textbook audio for modelling, rehearsed privately, and recorded their best sixty-second take on their phone or computer.

Uploads were made through the university’s learning management system, and I replied with one short comment and a simple rating — Excellent, Pass, or Retry. Resubmission was always allowed. Students decided when and how many times to rehearse before submitting the version that felt ready for that week.

Although framed as a “speech contest,” there was no competition. The idea drew on a familiar school tradition many students knew well. By treating each recording as if it were a short contest speech, students intuitively understood the level of rehearsal and preparation expected. The name gave structure and purpose to what was, in reality, an individual weekly speaking assignment.

 

Why this approach worked

Learner autonomy, as described by Henri Holec (1981) and David Little (1991), involves learners taking charge of their own study through planning, action, and reflection. Autonomy is not about removing guidance but about giving students structured opportunities to make decisions and evaluate their progress.

The weekly speech-contest-style task encouraged that cycle naturally. Students planned their recording sessions, acted through rehearsal and performance, and reviewed their own output before deciding to submit or retry. In doing so, they were practising the same self-regulatory habits that Rebecca Oxford (2017) associates with successful strategy use.

Self-Determination Theory, first formalised by Deci and Ryan (1985) and later expanded in their 2017 work, also helps explain why motivation increased. It suggests that three needs — autonomy, competence, and relatedness — must be supported for intrinsic motivation to grow. In this task, students controlled the timing and number of attempts (autonomy), received short but specific feedback that signalled progress (competence), and communicated directly with a supportive teacher audience (relatedness). The simple routine created a sense of agency and encouragement that standard homework rarely achieves.

 

From assisted reading to autonomy

The project also re-imagined well-known fluency traditions such as repeated or assisted oral reading, described by Taguchi (2004), Jeon (2012), and Nation and Newton (2009), as well as the shadowing techniques discussed by Hamada (2021). Those methods build fluency and rhythm through repetition, but usually under teacher control.

In my version, students guided the repetition themselves. They were free to record, listen, and self-correct as many times as they wished before submission. The “best-take” decision gave them ownership of both process and product. This autonomy turned what might have been a mechanical repetition exercise into a reflective practice — one that asked students to notice, compare, and improve each week.

 

What happened in practice

Students engaged with the task enthusiastically. Many reported several rehearsals — typically around five, though some mentioned as many as ten — before submitting their final recording. Some said they began noticing pronunciation or rhythm issues only after listening to themselves, which led to genuine self-correction.

Over time, I noticed they came into class with more confidence not just in reading aloud, but in all kinds of speaking tasks. They began playing with intonation more naturally, bringing a more expressive and enjoyable rhythm to their English. Even without formal measurement, it was clear that this regular practice was helping them feel more at ease and more expressive across different classroom speaking activities.

 

Keeping it manageable

Each submission lasted about a minute, and with around twenty-five to thirty students per class, reviewing all recordings each week took roughly 45 minutes to an hour. I used a short comment bank to keep feedback simple — focusing on one key area each week, such as fluency, intonation, or pronunciation. This helped students know exactly what to work on for the next task.

Credit was mostly for completion rather than accuracy, reducing pressure and encouraging consistent participation. The predictable routine helped normalise speaking practice as a regular habit instead of an occasional test event.

 

Adjustments along the way

There were, of course, small challenges. Mid-semester, a few students began submitting late or missing a week. To keep motivation healthy, I reframed expectations: “Aim for a good best-take this week, not perfection.” Some recordings also had background noise or showed little rehearsal, so I asked for resubmissions in quieter environments and reminded students that the goal was quality practice, not just completion.

Occasional variations — such as short dialogues or role-plays — helped keep the routine fresh. Technical issues (microphones, file types, upload errors) were rare and quickly solved with a simple troubleshooting guide. Once established, the system ran smoothly across several cohorts.

 

What I learned

This micro-task gradually became more than an assessment; it was a weekly cycle of autonomy in action. Students needed less prompting over time, often experimenting with their own rehearsal strategies — shadowing before recording, slowing the tempo, or chunking the text. Their confidence grew from self-discovery rather than correction.

It also reminded me that motivation can emerge from structure, not only from novelty. As B. D. Jones (2018) explains, autonomy-supportive teaching is about designing environments where students feel capable of making meaningful choices. The weekly speech-contest framing provided exactly that: a framework sturdy enough to guide but flexible enough to belong to each learner.

 

Implications for teachers

For teachers working within limited speaking time, this model offers a scalable way to strengthen oral practice without adding classroom load. A few principles that worked for me:

• Keep it short and regular. A one-minute recording each week sustains progress and keeps feedback manageable.
• Let students control timing and attempts. Ownership builds reflection and reduces anxiety.
• Give one clear cue. A single piece of feedback is often more helpful than multiple corrections.
• Vary formats sometimes. Dialogues or short speeches refresh interest.
• Normalise “good-enough.” Remind students that improvement grows from steady practice, not perfection.

 

Conclusion

What started as an experiment to extend speaking time outside class became a durable part of my teaching routine. Students continue to produce more spoken English, both inside and outside the classroom, and many now treat recording practice as a normal part of language study.

Autonomy, as Holec (1981) described decades ago, is the ability to take charge of one’s own learning. By letting students practise within a familiar speech-contest frame, this simple task created a small but powerful space for that growth. Sometimes, the most effective classroom innovations are the ones that quietly continue long after the experiment ends.

 

Ethics statement

This article reports classroom reflection rather than formal research involving human participants. No identifiable student data were collected or stored.

 

References

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.

Hamada, Y. (2021). Shadowing procedures in teaching and their future. The Language Teacher, 45(6), 11–15.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon.

Jeon, E. H. (2012). Oral reading fluency in second language reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(2), 186–208.

Jones, B. D. (2018). Motivating students by design: Practical strategies for professors (2nd ed.). Virginia Tech Publishing.

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik.

Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. Routledge.

Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Taguchi, E. (2004). Developing reading fluency in EFL: Repeated reading with an auditory model. Reading in a Foreign Language, 16(2), 70–96.

 

Please check the Pilgrims in Segovia Teacher Training courses 2026 at Pilgrims website