Didactic Dilemmas and Possibilities: Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions of Speaking Spanish in Foreign Language Education in Swedish Lower Secondary School

2.2.1. Teachers’ Perspectives on Teaching and Learning to Speak

Empirical research that investigates language teacher cognition related to speaking skills in foreign languages is scarce, as established by Llovet Vilà and Nyström (2023). For example, two of the most essential works on language teacher cognition by Borg (2003, 2015) lack specific sections dedicated to spoken skills.

However, some research into Swedish modern language teachers’ beliefs have been investigated in lower secondary school settings (Granfeldt et al., 2016). In a study where 315 teachers from 186 schools answered a questionnaire, 41% stated that they speak the target language during 25–50% of the lesson time, with more use during whole class activities than when talking to individual students (Erickson et al., 2022). Similarly, Llovet Vilà (2018) and Nilsson et al. (2019) investigated modern language teachers’ beliefs and found that both in-service teachers and teacher students struggle to apply a communicative classroom approach in the target language. This difficulty is mainly explained by the students’ varying proficiency levels and by their ambition to speak the target language rather than the majority language, even when teaching grammar. A recent study by Beslagic (2024) into teachers’ insights about teaching grammar in modern language education showed that teachers’ emotions and the educational context (e.g., group size) strongly affect their didactic decisions.

In addition, although assessment is not the main focus of the present study, it illustrates what is valued as important knowledge. Borger (2019) highlighted the particular complexity of assessing spoken interaction in English, showing that a decisive factor in spoken performance is the individual student and the relationships between the students. Similar results were found by Frisch (2021), who additionally identified that English teachers struggled to fully define the notions ‘speaking’ and ‘spoken production and interaction’ at a personal level.

Another challenge in planning and carrying out teaching is the time aspect. Lightbown and Spada (2020) report on two widespread time-related misconceptions regarding efficient language learning: first, the idea that starting language studies as early as possible in the curriculum leads to better outcomes. Second, the ‘common sense’ (Lightbown & Spada, 2020, p. 422) belief that exclusively speaking the target language is the most efficient method. The authors explain that neither of these ideas is based upon research-based evidence. Instead, they suggest more efficient teaching approaches: concentrated periods of intensive instruction and integrated content and language instruction.

2.2.2. Students’ Perspectives on Teaching and Learning to Speak

Among lower secondary students, Granfeldt et al. (2023) found generally positive attitudes towards the ability to speak more languages than English, although modern languages were not considered important school subjects. Girls were more anxious than boys about speaking in class yet more motivated to learn. The investigation also assessed proficiency in speaking, and when the students were asked about the test, they explained that they were unaccustomed to speaking and interacting independently in the target language. Spanish students rated their own performance lower compared to students of French and German (Granfeldt et al., 2023). The findings that the students are not used to practising independent spoken interaction align with research on students of Spanish who reported that their instruction in lower secondary school had included more writing and reading than spoken activities (Aronsson, 2023).

Investigations into the connection between emotion and motivation in learning modern languages in Sweden have established that these concepts are closely related to young learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC) in a foreign language (Sayehli et al., 2022). Moreover, the correlation between a high level of foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA) and a low level of WTC was similar between the three modern languages of French, German and Spanish. Another finding was that FLCA was found to inhibit even highly motivated learners (Sayehli et al., 2022). Nilsson (2020) found similar results about young learners of English in Swedish primary school, where numerous students expressed anxiety about speaking in class and distress when they did not understand instructions or failed to communicate in the target language.

When investigating Norwegian English students’ perceptions of teachers’ spoken target language in lower secondary school, (Brevik & Rindal, 2020) show that teachers who spoke more of the majority language were seen as more helpful. This finding was interpreted not solely in terms of the actual amount of each language spoken but rather as functions of pedagogical translanguaging, meaning that the didactic situation, rather than the language choice, is what mattered. Similarly, Cypriot English students in upper secondary school expressed that the majority language provided a sense of security and helped students understand difficult concepts (Tsagari & Diakou, 2015).

With regard to the rationale for choosing a Modern language in Sweden, Finndahl (2023) found that French, German or Spanish were chosen primarily for affective reasons, such as for journeys, because friends and family knew the language, or because the teacher seemed nice. Although the language was expected to be useful in the future, English was considered sufficient. Overall, the most desired learning goal was the ability to speak the new language fluently (Finndahl, 2023).

In a report on perceptions among Modern language students in Danish lower and upper secondary schools, the students equated knowing a foreign language with being able to communicate, particularly orally, in that language (Barfod Lund et al., 2023). Generally, students wished to practise speaking more and achieve better fluency and confidence, but they felt hindered by a focus on accuracy. The students put collaboration with others in the forefront, and they explained that teachers need empathy in addition to teaching skills, claiming that their motivation increased when teachers were able to empathise with their perspective (Barfod Lund et al., 2023).

To summarise, research shows that teachers are aware of their own spoken target language. Moreover, although students are anxious and unaccustomed to spoken activities in class, they have a strong desire to learn to speak and communicate in the foreign language. Overall, to develop classroom practices regarding speaking in Modern languages, in general, and Spanish, in particular, more knowledge is needed about teachers’ and students’ experiences, given that they are invaluable sources of knowledge.

4.1.1. Teachers

When the personal dimension was discussed, personal attitudes, abilities and emotions were in focus. Although the didactic who? question normally refers to the learner, there were also examples in the data where teachers discussed themselves as individuals. They explained how their profession is inspiring yet challenging. In comparisons with their other subjects, such as English or Swedish, one teacher expressed that she adopts a different role when teaching Spanish compared to teaching the other languages.

When the teachers talked about the students as individuals, emotions and feelings of security were emphasised in relation to speaking. Teachers struggled to make students feel comfortable in spoken activities, as exemplified in the quote from teacher Beatriz: ‘But I think that's the hardest part, to involve those students who think it’s scary’. The teachers referred to the students’ emotions in relation to spoken activities, also exemplified in the following excerpt:

The students’ different linguistic abilities presented another challenge for the teachers. Overall, students with high proficiency levels generally continue their language studies, while students with difficulties often drop out of Spanish – a situation that also raised concerns about how to retain students with difficulties in the group and encourage them to develop their oral skills.

4.1.2. Students

When the students described the personal dimension of speaking, there were many comparisons with English, but not with other languages. They explained that English is much easier to speak than Spanish, due to the perceived easy grammar and the extensive exposure to English outside of school. In addition, they claimed not to be afraid of making mistakes in English, while this anxiety was central when speaking Spanish. Another difference was that Spanish was considered as more ‘equal’, as few students have prior knowledge in Year 6, while English knowledge differs already from the start, as exemplified in the following excerpt:

With regard to the purpose, Spanish cannot match the importance of English. While many considered it fun, interesting or cool to know Spanish and other languages, it was not seen as particularly important. A few students stated that speaking Spanish was only important for their grades. However, for some, Spanish was a conscious choice, as it was considered one of the world’s biggest, and it was justified with experiences such as journeys, having Spanish-speaking friends and families, future jobs, or possibilities to make friends all over the world. Most of the students had tried to speak Spanish and communicate in a ‘real world setting’ outside of class. They described using successful strategies that allowed them to communicate and get the message across, noting that, on the one hand, speaking outside of class could feel more stressful, without access to the ‘security nets’ of teachers, classmates or scaffolding structures; on the other hand, it could be perceived as less stressful, given that no one would be evaluating their performance.

Positive personal experiences of speaking Spanish in class were expressed in terms of security and ability, which fostered self-confidence once students were able to speak and communicate with a peer. Speaking was typically described as more fun than writing, and the classroom was seen as a good and safe place to practise speaking. Negative experiences of speaking Spanish in class concerned anxiousness and the fear of making mistakes that others might hear – a fear that may stop students from raising their hands. The students expressed an ambition to get it right and stressed that Spanish is difficult to speak correctly, given that it is spoken fast and is considered to have complex grammar. A few students expressed that teachers occasionally seemed to forget that the language was new and thus difficult for learners.

4.2.1. Teachers

When discussing content, teachers described spoken proficiency as involving pronunciation practice, reading aloud and playing theatre – all of which are spoken classroom activities – while definitions of spoken production and interaction specifically were more elusive. They commonly talked about spoken production and interaction in terms of progression – a development that starts with imitation, reading aloud or pronunciation, then passes through scaffolding phases of formulating sentences, and eventually ends in free and spontaneous language production and interaction. Moreover, speaking was considered difficult both to learn and to teach, as one teacher explains,

The communicative skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) were considered as content per se, in addition to thematic topics and linguistic structures. Thematic topics were everyday activities related to the students’ lives, for example, weather, clothes, holidays, restaurants, home and recreation, indicating that knowledge should also be useful outside of class. Linguistic structures were generally described as accuracy training related to vocabulary and grammar, for example, verb conjugation or gender of nouns.

4.2.2. Students

Unlike the teachers, the students were not explicitly asked to define spoken proficiency, but they explained that writing is generally a more frequent classroom activity than speaking. They discussed the same linguistic structures and vocabulary but commonly described them as being practised within thematic areas, for example, weather, holiday activities or clothes, with the conjugation of verbs as the most typical practice of linguistic structures. Moreover, the content was generally described in connection to how it was perceived, on scales of either usefulness, difficulty, or engagement, but not specifically for them as individuals but rather as typical and general for learners.

The students considered it useful to describe clothes and practise vocabulary about dates and weather, and educative to master tasks that seemed difficult at first, for example, using one’s knowledge to produce more complex language than just single words. Activities that brought a sense of reality were also described as useful, for example, talking to someone was considered more educational than writing dialogues.

According to the students, the content also differed in terms of its difficulty. This was expressed as either knowing the vocabulary or not, or understanding the instruction or not, but no content or spoken activity was considered too easy. Moreover, they explained that despite knowledge of a verbal structure, they sometimes lacked the accurate vocabulary and thus could not produce their own sentences. The actual topic might also be problematic, for example, if the students lacked information about a country or fashion style or could not figure out a good story in a guessing game.

Regarding whether content was engaging or not, the students explained that it is nice to know more about your classmates, fun to compete in a game, or interesting because the content relates to reality (holiday plans or TV programmes). Overall, the ability to speak the language, even despite its difficulties, was described as inspiring. Nevertheless, on the uninspiring end of the scale were monotonous activities, for example, extensive work in the textbook or playing the same game all the time.

4.3.1. Teachers

Regarding how speaking is planned and carried out, teachers considered the assessment of spoken proficiency to be particularly complex, considering both the quality of oral skills and practicalities, such as frequency and feedback methods. The complexity is exemplified in the nature of interaction, which includes a degree of unpredictability that makes it impossible to prepare completely in advance. Additionally, interaction includes peers who may be friends or not. Moreover, assessment is best done outside of class, for example, in a quieter room and away from classmates’ earshot, which complicates the organisation.

As for different languages, the teachers mentioned that both Swedish (majority language) and Spanish (target language) were spoken in the classroom. They explained an ambition to speak Spanish first and then translate if needed, but they were not always aware of their own code-switching. Swedish was generally spoken to ensure that everyone understood, especially instructions, although sometimes they forgot to speak Spanish or explained that Swedish was more efficient. All teachers except one mentioned occasions when, despite their original ambition to speak Spanish, they ended up speaking Swedish. In addition, they aimed to gradually increase the amount of spoken Spanish throughout the school years and exemplified various ways of doing so, such as following the same lesson structure, repeating the same expressions, or using the whiteboard for scaffolding. Another method was to consistently use the specific classroom expressions in Spanish, for example, What does it mean? or Can I borrow a pencil? – phrases normally learned from the start. In the following quote, teacher Eduardo explains the inner negotiation process preceding the didactic choice of language:

When it comes to assessing the students’ spoken language, teachers explained that group- or pair work complicates evaluation. They cannot hear individuals when everyone talks simultaneously, yet they assumed that too much Swedish was spoken outside of the teachers’ earshot. The teachers believed that, considering the nature of the activities, students would gradually master speaking more Spanish, but they assumed that students prioritised finishing the tasks or getting the message across, therefore resorting to speaking more Swedish. They also believed that students forgot to speak Spanish during activities that were too engaging, which was problematic. Moreover, teachers were aware that linguistic difficulties often led students to speak Swedish, and they understood the students’ frustration about not being able to express themselves in Spanish.

In addition to the choice of either Spanish or Swedish, teaching materials mattered in teaching oral skills, and the teachers used printed and digital textbooks, games, and audio-visual material for this purpose. They considered authentic material, interpreted as material not adapted to language learners, to be beneficial and motivating, and they strived to use more authentic material when planning and carrying out lessons. However, given that Swedish is the ordinary medium of communication in school, it was described as somewhat unnatural to conduct classroom communication in Spanish. Overall, the teachers found it problematic and time-consuming to create activities with an authentic approach, as exemplified by teacher Ana:

In descriptions of lesson structure, the introduction of each lesson was identified as particularly important, as students come from other lessons and need to ‘zoom into Spanish’. One method is to conduct oral presentations and instructions as joint, guided activities at the beginning of the lesson, which is beneficial when students are reluctant to pause individual written work. During lessons, teachers sometimes followed their original plan, but if they realised it was too difficult or not engaging, they changed it ad hoc, emphasising how proof of a good lesson is that students are engaged and working actively. In the following quote, teacher Claudia explains her didactic choice of changing a lesson plan:

Spoken activities were said to mainly be carried out in pairs or small groups to ensure that everyone speaks simultaneously and to prevent others from overhearing. This method was considered to reduce students’ embarrassment and inhibition; it was even expressed that classes which are too silent are bad for language learning. One challenge encountered was that teachers must attend to students in need of special support and thus cannot help others in spoken activities.

As for scaffolding speaking, teachers described the struggle to provide the right sort and amount, as scaffolding structures can sometimes be limiting and hinder the students’ own language production. Repetition was mentioned as one scaffolding method, along with games, speaking with the support of pictures, and the use of cognates and formulaic sequences. Although groups varied in their level of talkativeness, successful spoken activities were characterised as being joint and guided, with the right scaffolding provided.

4.3.2. Students

When the students talked about how teaching speaking is carried out, Ana’s students stressed the beneficial structure of their sessions. They have one out of three lessons a week in smaller groups that only include students from their own class. In contrast, the other two lessons involve twice as many students, including those from other classes, making the environment appear less safe and secure. These smaller groups were seen as particularly helpful for spoken activities:

They also emphasised the importance of support for speaking, and they preferred scaffolding in the form of modelling, written keywords, written linguistic structures, or translations into Swedish. Spoken activities without any scaffolding were rare, and the students elaborated on the balance between getting help, but not too much help. They knew that they were capable of accomplishing even difficult speaking tasks, leading to reflections on how much translation or written text that was needed during speaking activities. However, they stressed that, in regard to understanding instructions, everyone, including students with lower proficiency, must know what to do to ensure that no one is left behind.

Another type of ‘scaffolding item’, according to the students, was their classmates and the teachers. The teachers’ availability and patience were perceived as highly supportive, and spoken activities offered possibilities to get to know the classmates better and learn from them, as explained by Claudia’s students:

Repeated tasks or content, both within one lesson and from one occasion to another, were seen as helpful. The students did not consider repetition to be a boring feature per se or a contrast to variation but rather as essential for recalling vocabulary or grammar after, for example, a holiday. Although the students were not asked specifically about assessment, they explained that spoken tests are performed outside of the classroom. Moreover, they stressed the importance of proper preparation in advance and conducting the tests together with a familiar peer. How the groups were organised and the classmates’ behaviour are significant factors for the students. Peers were described as supportive and helpful, but also the other way around – as restraining forces that hinder one’s willingness to engage in spoken interaction, as exemplified in the following:

Likewise, Beatriz’s students describe the impact of peers in an interaction activity carried out outside of the classroom:

Regarding teachers’ spoken language, the students preferred the instructions to be given first in Spanish, then translated into Swedish, giving them a chance to check their own comprehension. When teachers spoke exclusively in Spanish, students felt insecure and anxious. They appreciated it when teachers spoke Spanish but stressed that they should encourage students to speak Spanish as well, for example, by reminding them when they forget, as explained by Diana’s students:

In terms of time distribution, the students suggested that spoken activities often required more time for both preparation and reflection. Overall, they wanted to avoid too rapid progression, preferring that everyone had learned the intended content before proceeding. In addition, they suggested more ‘practical’ (students’ definition) activities and less reading and writing, explained as more spoken practice and less assessment. Spoken activities at the beginning of every lesson were seen as positive, as were activities with a competitive nature. Finally, teachers were advised not to wait for some students to raise their hands, as it takes courage to raise one’s hand and speak in class.