This course is a workshop in spoken French for third-year students in the interpreting track and incoming Erasmus students. Using current affairs and authentic French-language sources as a starting point, it develops students’ ability to present their views, support their arguments with evidence, and take part in discussions, interviews, and public speaking activities. The thirteen thematic units cover European institutions, economics, science, artificial intelligence, and culture. Activities help students improve their accuracy and adapt their language to their audience and the situation. Recordings, feedback, and repeated practice enable students to identify difficulties and track their progress in pronunciation, prosody, comprehension, and natural expression in French.

Learning Objectives

Upon successful completion of the course, students will be able to:

• Synthesize information from two authentic French-language sources, distinguishing facts from opinions, predictions, and uncertain information, and clearly identify the source of each piece of information.
• Deliver a five-minute oral briefing in French with a clear structure, supporting evidence, and a conclusion, using a note card with keywords rather than a full written script.
• Participate in interviews, consultations, and roundtable discussions; ask relevant questions; respond spontaneously; disagree politely; and recognize when their knowledge is insufficient to provide an informed answer.
• Analyze public discourse by identifying the speaker’s stance and arguments, expressions of certainty, possibility, and obligation, underlying assumptions, metaphors, and features that affect credibility.
• Use common collocations, conventional phrases, and idiomatic expressions, and adapt their register to the audience, purpose, and setting, whether in formal or institutional communication, news reporting, everyday conversation, or storytelling.
• Use grammatical structures that affect meaning accurately, including tenses, negation, reported speech, and expressions of possibility, probability, and obligation. Speak intelligibly, organize speech into meaningful units, and make brief self-corrections without losing the thread of the message.
• Explain technical and scientific concepts to nonspecialist audiences, adapt their explanations for different audiences, and recognize the shared knowledge and cultural references underlying humor and irony.
• Communicate with people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, providing the context and clarification they need while avoiding stereotypical generalizations.
• Use feedback, compare successive recordings of their own speech, identify specific examples of progress or difficulty, and determine the next step in their practice.
• Evaluate and use approved digital preparation and practice tools critically, check the reliability of their outputs, and follow the course policy on artificial intelligence.
• Monitor and improve their spoken delivery, including pronunciation, intonation, and other aspects of prosody.

Course Content

Week 1 — Current Affairs, News, and Public Discourse

Skills and activities: An initial assessment explores students’ speaking, listening, and interaction skills and helps identify their individual learning needs. Students deliver a 90-second news briefing without reading from a script. They compare two sources, distinguish facts from commentary and speculation, and organize a short briefing around the questions “who,” “what,” “when,” and “why.” They practice attentive listening and clarification questions, then explain the same news story to a classmate who is unfamiliar with the local context.

Language focus: Forming questions, using narrative tenses, grouping speech into meaningful units with appropriate pauses, rhythm, and intonation.

Week 2 — European Institutions, Democracy, and Representation

Skills and activities: Students give a two-minute briefing explaining the main functions of European institutions to a nonspecialist audience. Particular attention is paid to distinguishing the European Council, the Council of the European Union, and the Council of Europe and their respective responsibilities. Students examine how speakers establish credibility and use “we” when speaking on behalf of an institution. They practice disagreeing politely and clearly, and adapt the same briefing for a formal audience and a student audience.

Language focus: Expressions of authority and obligation, relative clauses, the French subjunctive, and the use of stress to highlight contrasts or distinctions.

Week 3 — European Policies, Rights, and Mobility

Skills and activities: Students present an evidence-based position on a European policy in two and a half minutes. They distinguish a policy’s objectives, measures, and outcomes, and differentiate proposals from policies already in effect. A simulated public consultation follows, with students taking turns as an institutional representative, a student, and a representative of a civil society organization. Participants respond to objections without misrepresenting them and revise their proposals when new evidence or funding constraints arise.

Language focus: Expressing concession, cause, and effect; conditional sentences with si; and natural transitions between ideas.

Week 4 — International Relations, Security, and Defense

Skills and activities: Students deliver a three-minute statement in a diplomatic register and take part in an interview with challenging questions. They distinguish facts from assessments and identify euphemisms, qualifications, and wording that implies a commitment without stating it directly. They practice differentiating what is possible, what is intended, and what has been promised. They also learn to answer questions based on unsupported assumptions without automatically accepting those assumptions, and to express the same position in institutional and everyday language.

Language focus: Using the French conditional to signal unconfirmed information in news reporting, reported speech, and intonation that softens the force of a statement.

Week 5 — The Environment, Climate, and the Energy Transition

Skills and activities: Students deliver a three-minute persuasive speech in support of an environmental policy option, using a single chart. They explain trends and units of measurement accurately, examine cause-and-effect relationships, and clarify the time frame of any estimates. They distinguish correlation from evidence of causation and turn a slogan into a specific, testable claim. They respond to cost-related objections while acknowledging valid concerns, then deliver the presentation again for a nonspecialist audience with different priorities.

Language focus: Expressing cause and effect, using the passive voice, presenting quantitative data, and saying numbers aloud.

Week 6 — The Economy, Inflation, and Social Development

Skills and activities: Students deliver a three-minute economic briefing for the general public and take part in an interview explaining economic data. They distinguish the level of an economic indicator from a change in that indicator and a forecast of its future movement, as well as percentages from percentage points. They examine evaluative language in economic reporting and explain terminology to nonspecialists using comparisons that aid understanding without distorting the meaning. They attribute forecasts to the organizations that issued them and present them as estimates rather than certainties.

Language focus: Describing economic changes, comparative structures, appropriate prepositions in common economic expressions, and saying decimals and percentages aloud.

Week 7 — Financial Markets and Financial Risk

Skills and activities: Students give a self-contained three-minute presentation explaining two financial concepts, with examples that make them accessible. The emphasis is on distinguishing descriptions of how markets work from investment recommendations. Students identify metaphors and exaggerated promises in financial discourse and respond to unexpected questions while clearly acknowledging the limits of their knowledge. The individual midterm assessment includes a presentation and a discussion. Students use the feedback to develop a personal improvement plan.

Language focus: Prepositions used to describe changes, distinctions between related terms, and concise, clear definitions.

Week 8 — Public Administration, Development, and Social Cohesion

Skills and activities: Students explain an administrative procedure in four minutes, using plain language, a clear sequence of steps, and all relevant eligibility requirements or conditions. A public service role-play follows, covering polite requests, complaint handling, open-ended questions to check understanding, and specific requests for clarification. Students then explain the same procedure to a new resident or an Erasmus student unfamiliar with the administrative system.

Language focus: Using the French conditional for polite requests, clear pronoun reference, replacing dense noun phrases with simpler verb-based sentences, and using the polite form of address vous.

Week 9 — Biomedical Research, Health, and Scientific Innovation

Skills and activities: Students explain a scientific finding to a nonspecialist audience in four minutes, identifying the study population, method, and main limitation. They take part in a simulated interview with a researcher. They distinguish laboratory findings from applications in humans and avoid unsupported causal claims or promises of therapeutic benefits. They rewrite exaggerated news headlines and respond to public concerns without providing individualized medical advice.

Language focus: Expressing probability, possibility, and caution; distinguishing étude from recherche; and pronouncing scientific terms clearly with appropriate pauses.

Week 10 — Astrophysics, Space, and Advanced Research

Skills and activities: Students deliver a four-minute scientific talk without reading from a script and with a single visual aid. The talk is organized around the research question, method, findings, and the conclusions the findings support. Students use an analogy to aid understanding and explain its limitations. They distinguish observation from scientific models and hypotheses, then adapt the talk for a funding organization without promising immediate applications that the evidence does not support.

Language focus: Definitions using relative clauses, referring to details in an image, saying large numbers aloud, appropriate pauses, and the judicious use of sarcasm and self-deprecating humor.

Week 11 — Artificial Intelligence, Digital Society, and Public Debate

Skills and activities: Students participate in a structured roundtable discussion. Each participant presents a two-minute position supported by evidence, clarifying what the available evidence supports and where uncertainty remains. During the discussion, students restate opposing views accurately before responding, invite others to contribute, and bring the discussion back to the topic when necessary. They distinguish technical capabilities from ethical or political choices and critically examine exaggerated claims and metaphors associated with the term “intelligence.”

Language focus: Expressions for organizing a discussion, taking and yielding the floor, disagreeing politely, and briefly restating a position.

Week 12 — Culture, the Arts, Literature, and Humor

Skills and activities: Students present a four-minute oral review of a cultural work in the format of a short broadcast and tell a story or joke of their choice, in their own words, in 60–90 seconds. They identify the shared knowledge and cultural references an audience needs to understand the humor. They try a neutral rephrasing or a brief clarification when a joke is not understood, and adapt their storytelling for a multicultural audience.

Language focus: Narrative tenses, moving an element to the beginning or end of a sentence for emphasis (dislocation), evaluative collocations, wordplay and puns, and distinctions between informal and formal or elevated registers (familier and soutenu).

Week 13 — Synthesizing Current Affairs and Public Communication

Skills and activities: Students apply the skills developed throughout the semester to a new current-affairs issue that connects several course themes. They deliver an individual five-minute briefing and take part in a simulated press conference. They adjust their responses when the question or audience changes and present the same content in institutional and everyday language. They compare their final recording with their initial one, focusing on organization, naturalness, and clarity, and reflect on their overall progress.

References

Bell, N. (2015). We are not amused: Failed humor in interaction. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501586

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment—Companion volume. https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/cefr-companion-volume-and-its-language-versions

Cutting, J., & Fordyce, K. (2021). Pragmatics: A resource book for students (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003010043

Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108643689

Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. Cambridge University Press.

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733017

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520

Maingueneau, D. (Ed.). (2005). Analyse du discours : État de l’art et perspectives [Special issue]. Marges linguistiques, (9). https://www.revue-texto.net/Parutions/Marges/00_ml092005.pdf

North, B., Piccardo, E., Goodier, T., Fasoglio, D., Margonis-Pasinetti, R., & Rüschoff, B. (Eds.). (2022). Enriching 21st century language education: The CEFR Companion volume in practice. Council of Europe Publishing. https://book.coe.int/en/education-and-modern-languages/11052-pdf-enriching-21st-century-language-education-the-cefr-companion-volume-in-practice.html

Pateli, M., & Fredet, F. (2010). La phonétique du français. Symmetria.

Róg, T. (2026). The interaction between task repetition and oral task enjoyment: Effects on speech complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Language Teaching, 59(4), 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444825100840

van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006

Weber, C. (2013). Pour une didactique de l’oralité : Enseigner le français tel qu’il est parlé. Didier.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772

Related Scholarly Journals

1. Journal of Pragmatics
2. Language Teaching
3. Language Teaching Research
4. The Modern Language Journal
5. Les langages du politique
6. Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures

The initial article The is disregarded when alphabetizing journal titles.

Online Sources for Teaching Materials

1. ADEME
2. Autorité des marchés financiers — Espace épargnants
3. Banque de France
4. Bibliothèque nationale de France
5. Centre national d’études spatiales — CNES
6. Council of the European Union — Video
7. European Commission — Audiovisual Service
8. European Parliament — Multimedia Centre
9. France 24 — French-language edition
10. France Culture
11. Inria
12. Inserm — Actualités
13. NATO
14. OECD
15. Service-Public.fr
16. UN Web TV

Teaching Methods

The course meets in person for two hours per week and follows a workshop format. Instruction includes brief presentations, examples of effective phrasing modeled by the instructor, and activities in pairs or groups of three. In larger classes, several groups work on activities at the same time. Instructions, activities, and feedback are all provided in French.

Students take turns as speakers, conversation partners, and observers. Each activity has a defined audience and a clear communicative purpose, such as providing information, presenting a proposal, explaining a concept, negotiating, or telling a story.

Practice follows a consistent sequence:

1. Preparation using two authentic sources.
2. An initial oral presentation or attempt at the activity.
3. Feedback linked to two specific timestamps in the recording.
4. Targeted practice addressing two identified difficulties.
5. A second attempt with a different question, audience, or piece of supporting evidence to assess whether students can apply the skills in a new situation.

This approach draws on task-based language teaching and the guidance in the Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.

Vocabulary development and grammatical accuracy are integrated into oral communication activities. Each week, students record eight language items, including common collocations, expressions for organizing speech and discussion, one idiom, and an example showing how phrasing changes across registers. Entries include a neutral alternative and an original example of use. Students are not required to use a set number of idiomatic expressions in their presentations.

Listening materials feature speakers from France and other French-speaking regions. Pronunciation is assessed primarily on the basis of intelligibility.

Erasmus students do not need to know Greek to take the course. Following the initial diagnostic assessment, students are offered two preparation pathways: one providing additional support and one offering more advanced activities. All students complete graded assignments under the same conditions and are assessed against the same criteria.

Use of Information and Communication Technologies

Speaking practice is supported by digital learning materials and authentic audiovisual sources on current affairs.

The course’s eClass site is used to post materials, instructions, and deadlines, collect assignments and recordings, and provide feedback. Other resources include a projector, listening and recording equipment, monolingual dictionaries, and language corpora: organized collections of texts used to study how language is actually used.

Specialized digital workspaces and practice environments (Workbenches), along with H5P-compatible tools, support interactive activities combining text, speech, sound, and images. Students use these resources under the instructor’s guidance and close supervision.

The following rules govern the use of artificial intelligence (AI):

• Permitted uses: AI may be used only for the educational purposes described below and under the instructor’s strict supervision.
• Preparing teaching materials: The instructor may use AI to create and adapt oral communication activities. These include multimodal exercises combining sound, images, and text; comprehension activities; vocabulary and register exercises; tasks of increasing difficulty; and multiple-choice questions. Every activity is reviewed before it is used in class with the available audiovisual equipment.
• Digital practice and H5P: AI may support the integration of specialized practice environments with eClass and the incorporation of H5P-compatible tools. These environments support interactive exercises involving different types of material, changes of speaker, and gradual increases in difficulty, such as faster speech or a greater volume of information.
• Assessment: AI is not used to assess students except in specific cases for which the instructor has established clear conditions and criteria. Any such use remains under the instructor’s control. Final assessment decisions and grading are solely the instructor’s responsibility.
• Assignments and preparation: Students may not use AI to write assignments or reflective texts. For research and preparation, AI may be used within the specialized practice environments or for an initial exploration of a topic, provided that students cross-check information, verify sources, and disclose their use of AI. In graded speaking assessments, students must produce their own speech independently.
• Vocabulary and expression logs: AI may help students initially identify collocations, expressions, and alternative ways of phrasing an idea. Every suggestion must be checked against authentic sources, reliable dictionaries, and language corpora. Students record its meaning, register, and context of use. AI responses do not count as supporting sources and do not replace students’ own research or writing.
• Critical and responsible use: The course examines the capabilities and limitations of digital tools. Automatically generated captions and transcripts must always be checked against the audio. Students examine accuracy, omissions, distortions of meaning, bias, and the suitability of outputs for oral communication. They also learn to select tools on the basis of clear evidence and criteria, with particular attention to protecting recordings and personal data.

Assessment

Initial Diagnostic Assessment

An ungraded diagnostic assessment takes place in Week 1. It includes a recorded 90-second news briefing in French, delivered without reading from a script, and an exchange of questions in groups of three.

The purpose is to identify each student’s strengths and needs in speaking, listening comprehension, and discussion. The results inform two personal improvement goals and the choice of an appropriate preparation pathway.

Formative Assessment and Ongoing Feedback

Throughout the semester, students complete weekly assignments to support their progress. These include:

• A one-page source dossier.
• Two recordings: an initial recording and a second recording made after feedback and practice.
• A log of eight language items.
• A short reflection on difficulties, progress, and next steps.

These assignments are not graded separately. Students receive descriptive feedback tied to specific timestamps in their recordings.

The process combines self-assessment and peer assessment. Students work in groups of three, rotating the roles of speaker, conversation partner, and observer, or participate in a whole-class discussion.

Source and Language Dossiers

Students prepare two dossiers: the first before Week 4 and the second before Week 9.

Each dossier includes two authentic sources with full references, 16 language items selected from the weekly logs, and a one-page speaking outline.

For each language item, students record:

• The source and the specific passage or timestamp where it occurs.
• Its meaning.
• Its register and contexts of use.
• Its communicative function.
• An alternative phrasing in a neutral register.
• An original example of use.

Dossiers are assessed according to the following criteria:

• Documentation of sources and information: 40%.
• Accurate explanation of meaning and identification of register: 40%.
• Usefulness of the material for preparing and delivering spoken communication: 20%.

Portfolio

The portfolio contributes to the overall assessment and includes work from Weeks 2, 5, 8, 10, and 12.

For each task, students submit their initial and revised recordings, a brief speaking outline, and a 200-word analysis in French. The analysis refers to specific timestamps in the recordings so that observations are supported by examples.

The portfolio is assessed in two stages. Work from Weeks 2 and 5 is assessed after Week 6. Work from Weeks 8, 10, and 12 is assessed after Week 13, together with a final 400-word reflection on overall progress.

The assessment criteria are:

• Speaking performance in the recordings: 70%.
• Evidence-based analysis of strengths and difficulties: 20%.
• Application of the personal improvement plan in the second attempt: 10%.

Summative Assessment

Summative assessment measures performance at specified points during the semester and consists of the midterm assessment, the roundtable discussion, and the final examination.

Individual Midterm Assessment in Week 7

The assessment takes place in class and uses the same short source dossier for all students. Students receive the dossier during the preparation period. The topic and assessment criteria are announced 48 hours in advance.

Students have ten minutes to prepare and may create a note card with keywords. They then give a three-minute presentation followed by a three-minute question-and-answer discussion.

Individual feedback is provided within seven days. Each student uses it to develop an improvement plan.

Roundtable Discussion in Week 11

Students work in groups of three, but each student is assessed individually using the course’s common scoring rubric.

Each participant presents a two-minute position supported by evidence. This is followed by a nine-minute group discussion.

Assessment focuses on meaningful responses to others’ contributions, accurate restatement of opposing views, and collaboration. Dominating the discussion is not considered evidence of stronger performance. Neither the number of contributions nor the political position expressed is graded.

Final Examination

The final examination is individual, takes place in person after Week 13, and lasts 15 minutes. It includes:

• An oral briefing: 5 minutes.
• Questions, answers, and discussion: 5 minutes.
• Adapting register for a different audience: 2 minutes.
• Explaining the choice of sources and language: 3 minutes.

The broad topic area and assessment criteria are announced 48 hours before the examination. Immediately before the examination, students have 15 minutes of supervised preparation using a short source dossier they have not previously seen.

During the examination, students may use one note card containing up to 20 words and one chart included in the dossier. Reading from a full script, machine translation, and outside assistance are not permitted.

Common Criteria for Assessing Speaking

Speaking performance is assessed using seven criteria worth a total of 100 points:

• Content and supporting evidence: 15 points.
• Organization and argumentation: 15 points.
• Vocabulary, natural expression, and appropriate register: 20 points.
• Grammatical accuracy and precision of meaning: 15 points.
• Intelligible pronunciation, rhythm, stress, and intonation: 15 points.
• Fluency and management of pauses and self-corrections: 10 points.
• Participation in discussion and responsiveness to others: 10 points.

Each criterion is rated on a performance scale from 0 to 4. The score for a criterion is calculated by multiplying its maximum points by the performance rating and dividing the result by 4:

Criterion score = maximum points for the criterion × performance rating ÷ 4.

The same error does not automatically result in deductions under more than one criterion.

Pronunciation is assessed on the basis of intelligibility rather than similarity to a native speaker’s accent. Pauses and brief self-corrections are treated as natural features of speech, provided they do not interfere with comprehension or disrupt the flow of the message.

Assessment criteria and schedules are posted on eClass before each graded assignment or