Conceptualizing Impromptu Speaking in Tertiary EFL Context: A Scoping Review of Definitions, Operation, and Assessment Practices

Conceptualizing Impromptu Speaking in Tertiary EFL Context: A Scoping Review of Definitions, Operation, and Assessment Practices | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Conceptualizing Impromptu Speaking in Tertiary EFL Context: A Scoping Review of Definitions, Operation, and Assessment Practices The Khoa Tran, Tran Tin Nghi, Thuy Linh Vo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8985000/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In tertiary EFL contexts, Impromptu Speaking Skill (ISS) is widely discussed, but its conceptualization, task operationalization, and assessment remain inconsistently reported. This scoping review maps how ISS is defined, operationalized through speaking-task design and performance conditions, and assessed in tertiary EFL setting. Following scoping review guidance and PRISMA-ScR reporting, evidence sources were selected using the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework and charted for evidence mapping and conceptual mapping. Across 203 included sources, ISS was conceptualized along a continuum from traditional monologic impromptu speech to contemporary, interaction-oriented impromptu performance. Operationalization typically involved task parameters (i.e very limited or zero preparation, stimulus type, speaking mode, and interaction) to offer impromptu conditions. Assessment focuses on fluency, comprehension, accuracy, coherence, interaction, coherence and cohesion, pragmatic and strategic competence and discourse management. Overall, the review merges how ISS is conceptualized, operationalized, and assessed, and it proposes an operational definition and a minimum reporting set to strengthen comparability across future tertiary EFL studies. impromptu speaking skill tertiary EFL scoping review task operation assessment Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction In a tertiary EFL context, the objective of acquiring communicative competence is therefore not just “speaking correctly”. It also includes the ability to use language fluidly and appropriately in context, and in conversation as in real communicative situations. From the perspective of communicative language ability, learners must mobilize all language resources and strategic competence to fulfill speaking tasks under contexts where communicative information and purposes as well as interactional demands are continuously changing (Palmer & Bachman, 1996 ). However, in practical teaching and research, ISS, which frequently involves teaching and learning speaking and communication, has been far from adequately standardized both in conceptualization and assessment. This sub-speaking skill is relevant to the ability in which learners need to respond rapidly with little or no time for preparation. At the cognitive-linguistic level, spontaneous speaking places learners under time pressure for speaking, in which releasing ideas, selecting sentence structures, using vocabulary, organizing discourse and checking mistakes all occur simultaneously. This makes ISS a highly “performance-oriented” ability, associated with the automation of language production and fluency in spontaneous speech (Suzuki & Révész, 2023 ). In education, ISS is frequently conceptualized as an “output” competence since it points out learners’ ability to communicate in unplanned situations, which are familiar in interactive classrooms and modern educational and working contexts today. Nevertheless, the spontaneous feature of ISS also raises a fundamental conundrum, in which whether ISS is being recognised as a unified concept, or whether it just refers to several categories of speaking tasks or only a monologue? This has been noted in the literature that the term impromptu speaking is often used to refer to spontaneous speech, unplanned speech, or speaking tasks with “little or no preparation time.” At the same time, studies usually operationalize task conditions in vastly different manners, regarding preparation time, e.g 0 seconds, a few tens of seconds or a few minutes, communicative type, e.g open-ended questions, hypothetical scenarios, pictorial/charts, or academic topics, interaction format, for example monologue, dialogue or group discussion, and assessment requirements, such as fluency, accuracy, coherence, communicative strategies, and so forth. This diversity adds to the heterogeneity of the evidence base involving the concept of ISS. Without a clearly stated definition, knowledge acquisition can become challenging, in which findings are difficult to compare and synthesize, and pedagogical approach are less aligned with what is expected to enhance. The conceptual issue surrounding ISS becomes even more critical as emerging instructional models expand opportunities for spontaneous speaking in the classroom. For example, flipped classroom (FC) emphasizes shifting input delivery to the pre-class phase in order to reserve class time for interaction and practice, thereby enabling a higher density of speaking activities and feedback (Bergmann & Sams, 2012 ). Cooperative learning (CL) provides interactional organizational structures that support learners in taking turns, negotiating meaning, and co-constructing spoken products within a peer-supported environment (Kagan, 1989 ). At the level of digital learning-material design and interactive activity design, principles from the cognitive-affective theory of learning with media further suggest that, when activities are appropriately designed (e.g., through guidance, feedback, and pacing control), learners may better manage cognitive and affective load when processing complex tasks (Mayer & Moreno, 2003 ; Moreno & Mayer, 2007 ). Nevertheless, even under “more favorable” teaching conditions, if ISS still lacks a clear conceptual and operational framework, the design of teaching approaches or methods, the selection of techniques, and the construction of assessment criteria may remain inconsistent. For these reasons, this article proposes conducting a scoping review with a focus on concept clarification of ISS in the tertiary EFL context. A scoping review is appropriate when the purpose is to map the knowledge framework, identify how a concept is defined and operationalized, and describe gaps that require further investigation. The review process and reporting will be guided by methodological recommendations for scoping reviews and by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting standard (Peters et al., 2020 ; Tricco et al., 2018 ). Specifically, this scoping review aims to clarify how ISS has been defined, how it has been operationalized through teaching speaking conditions, and how it has been assessed in tertiary EFL context. The aims are presented in the three review questions in section 2.2 . By systematizing existing approaches, the article is expected to contribute a clearer conceptual foundation for both research and practice aimed at developing impromptu speaking competence in tertiary EFL education. 2. Methods 2.1. Review Design This study adopted a scoping review design with a concept clarification orientation in order to systematically map how ISS is conceptualized, operationalized through speaking-task features and performance conditions, and assessed in the tertiary EFL context. The choice of a scoping review aligns with the aim of clarifying the scope of existing knowledge and standardizing both the understanding and reporting of a concept that is “multi-component” in nature and often used inconsistently in speaking research and speaking assessment. The scoping review procedure was developed based on the foundational methodological framework (Arksey & O'malley, 2005 ), the rigor-enhancing extension (Levac et al., 2010 ), and it followed the updated guidance for scoping reviews in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Peters et al., 2020 ). To ensure transparency and auditability of the entire process, the review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (Tricco et al., 2018 ). 2.2. Review Questions This scoping review focused on three a priori review questions, including (1) How is ISS defined and described in tertiary EFL context? (2) How is ISS operationalized through speaking-task design and performance conditions (e.g., preparation time, stimulus type, production mode, and degree of interaction)? and (3) How is ISS assessed, including the assessment domains, rubric design and reported reliability and validity evidence? 2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria The criteria for selecting evidence sources were specified using the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework (Peters et al., 2020 ). In terms of population, the review included evidence in which the primary participants are tertiary EFL learners. Studies focusing on teachers were also considered if and only if their content is directly related to ISS task design or ISS assessment practices (e.g., rubric development, prompt design, rater training, or descriptions of rating decision-making processes). Secondly, the central concept is ISS, which closely relates terms that clearly indicate limited or near-zero preparation and/or real-time oral responding, including impromptu speaking, spontaneous speaking, unplanned speech, extemporaneous speaking, or real-time oral responding etc. A study is included when it satisfies at least one of the following conditions, covering it provides a definition/description of ISS, including both explicitly or implicitly, it describes a task meeting “impromptu or spontaneous” criteria via task parameters (e.g., zero or very short preparation time; immediate response requirements; restrictions on consulting resources or pre-writing) or it employs a assessment approach that the authors label as intended to measure spontaneous or impromptu speaking ability. Finally, the context is tertiary EFL setting, including speaking or oral communication courses, task-based speaking classrooms, or technology-supported learning environments for speaking practice at the university level. When it comes to types of evidence sources, the current review prioritized peer-reviewed journal articles, book, book sections and peer-reviewed conference proceedings. However, because concept clarification and measurement issues often require detailed technical descriptions, grey literature (e.g., dissertations or thesis) is considered selectively when it provides information on prompts, rubrics, rater training, and reliability that peer-reviewed articles sometimes report incompletely. Noticeably, the study excluded the following sources, including high school (or K-12) studies when tertiary-level data cannot be separated, opinions or ideas that lack methodological description or lack substantive content on impromptu speaking activities or ISS assessment and studies on speaking in general that provide no evidence of operationalizing impromptu, spontaneous or limited preparation conditions. To maximize mapping coverage and avoid missing key evidence sources, the review did not impose a specific start year; in stead, it prioritized coverage of the modern researches period in speaking tasks and speaking assessment from after 2000. Moreover, English is the preferred language; other languages are included only when the research team can process them consistently to ensure reliability in screening and extraction. 2.4. Data Sources and Search Strategy The search strategy was designed following the three-step process recommended by JBI for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020 ). First, an exploratory search was conducted to identify core terms and commonly used synonymous keywords appearing in the titles or abstracts or keywords of studies relevant to ISS. Second, based on findings from the exploratory step, a full search was implemented across the main databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, LLBA, PsycINFO and scholarly research tools (Google Scholar, PubMed and Research Gate) may also be added if the review scope needs to cover studies related to cognitive processing or performance under time pressure in speaking tasks. Thirdly, the review conducts citation tracking and screens the reference lists of key articles in both directions (i.e backward and forward citation searching) to increase coverage and reduce the risk of missing relevant evidence. The search string was structured around term clusters representing, comprising ISS or spontaneous or unplanned; speaking or oral communication; EFL context; higher education or tertiary settings; and speaking task or assessment or rubric. Each illustrative string is adjusted to the syntax of each database, embracing (“impromptu speaking” OR “spontaneous speaking” OR “unplanned speech” OR extemporaneous OR “real-time”) AND (speaking OR “oral communication”) AND (EFL OR “foreign language”) AND (tertiary OR universit* OR “higher education” OR college) AND (task* OR prompt* OR rubric* OR assess* OR rating). The search date, database, the number of results by database, and the detailed syntax are fully documented to enable reporting in accordance with PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (Tricco et al., 2018 ). 2.5. Reference Management, De-Duplication, and Study Screening All search results were exported to EndNote for de-duplication prior to screening. The screening process consisted of two rounds. In round 1, the author screened titles and abstracts based on the PCC criteria and categorized records as “include,” “exclude,” or “full-text required”. In round 2, retained articles were read in full to make final inclusion decisions; reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage were documented using standardized reason categories (e.g., wrong context; not meeting impromptu/spontaneous conditions; not tertiary level; insufficient task/assessment information). In borderline cases or when there was substantial ambiguity in interpreting the PCC criteria, the author consulted the research supervisor to reach agreement on how the criteria should be operationalized before finalizing decisions. All decisions and exclusion reasons were fully tracked to ensure the screening process is auditable and reproducible. The entire screening process and the number of studies at each step are presented using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews flow diagram (Tricco et al., 2018 ) ( see Fig. 2.1). (*Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, LLBA; PsycINFO; ** Google Scholar, PubMed or Research Gate; ***Mendeley) Figure 2.1 The PRISMA-ScR flow diagram. A total of 73 full-text reports were excluded for reasons. The most common reason was that the population or context did not align with tertiary-level EFL settings, followed by studies in which impromptu or spontaneous speaking was not clearly operationalised. Details are presented on the following table (Table 2.1 ). Table 2.1 Full-Text reports excluded, with reasons (n = 73) Reason Description n Reason 1: Wrong population or context Participants were not at tertiary level EFL learners, or tertiary-level data could not be isolated from other levels. 12 Reason 2: Concept not aligned with impromptu/spontaneous speaking Speaking activities did not involve limited preparation or real-time oral responding. 19 Reason 3: Insufficient task or assessment description Tasks or activities and assessment criteria (e.g., prompt type, preparation time, rubric, rater procedures) were insufficiently reported for charting 17 Reason 4: Not focused on speaking performance Studies mainly examined attitudes, curriculum, technology use, or general language outcomes without analysing speaking performance 13 Reason 5: Not sufficiently related to tertiary-level speaking development Content was relevant to EFL but not clearly linked to speaking competence development in tertiary EFL context 12 Total excluded 73 2.6. Data Extraction This study employs data charting to standardize information for concept mapping, rather than extracting data for the purpose of synthesizing intervention effects. A charting form was developed and piloted on a small set of articles (or pilot charting) to ensure adequate coverage and consistency before full extraction was conducted. The data fields include descriptive study information (i.e authors, year, country or region, EFL context, participants, sample size, design), ISS conceptualization (explicit definitions, implicit interpretations, alternative terms, emphasized core attributes), ISS operationalization through tasks (stimulus type, preparation time, performance conditions, production mode, degree of task constraints, degree of interaction) and the assessment, such as rubric, criteria, rating scale, number of raters, rater training, rating procedures, evidence of reliability or validity where available, and the transparency level of rubric descriptions. To ensure consistency in standardizing and comparing descriptions of ISS across studies, data charting was conducted using an analytic lens consisting of six ISS criteria ( see Appendix A). These six criteria were used as coding categories to record how each study conceptualized, operationalized, or assessed key aspects of ISS, including fluency, coherence and cohesion, strategic responsiveness, pragmatic appropriateness, topical or language development, and interactional engagement ( see Table 2.2 ). This analytic lens functions as an organizational and comparative framework for concept mapping, and it is not used as an exclusion criterion for evidence sources. Table 2.2 The analytic lens for data charting and conceptual mapping. ISS Criteria Description Example keywords/phrases for charting Fluency - Maintain a relatively smooth speech stream with minimal hesitation and a natural rhythm, indicating the level of proficiency in language production under real-time conditions. - Fluency; smooth flow; pauses or hesitation; breakdown fluency; speech rate; natural rhythm; filled pauses. Coherence & cohesion - Organize and sustain ideas in a logical structure, ensuring content linkage and discourse continuity so that listeners can follow the progression of reasoning/idea development in impromptu speech. - Coherence; cohesion; logical organization; discourse markers; idea linkage; structured response; clear progression. Strategic responsiveness - Identify communicative goals and evaluate the situation in real time, then adjust speech through strategies such as paraphrasing, self-repair, or compensating for linguistic gaps to sustain communication. - Strategic competence; responsiveness; self-repair; paraphrase; circumlocution; compensation strategies; monitoring; real-time adjustment. Pragmatic appropriateness - Reflects the extent to which lexical choices, grammatical structures, and delivery style are aligned with communicative function, context, and participant roles, demonstrating sociolinguistic appropriateness and communicative intent. - Pragmatic appropriateness; sociolinguistic; register; politeness; tone/style; functional language; role-appropriate; context-appropriate. Topical/language development - Make connections and build, elaborate and connect ideas in speech by accessing their topical knowledge and available linguistic resources (from experience or long-term knowledge); hence providing depth and coverage of content in their speaking in spontaneous contexts. - Topical development; idea elaboration; content expansion; supporting details; examples; relevance; lexical range; language development Interactional engagement - Mirror how learners interact with others by listening, responding, sustaining interaction (e.g., turn coordination) and maintaining interactional flow with peers/instructors during speaking tasks. - Interactional engagement; turn-taking; responsiveness; active listening; sustaining exchange; backchannels; negotiation of meaning; dialogue management 2.7. Critical Appraisal of Individual Sources This review did not conduct a formal critical appraisal of included sources. Instead, it recorded reporting transparency indicators (e.g., prompt specification, rubric availability, rater training, reliability evidence) as part of data charting. 2.8. Synthesis Approach Synthesis approach was conducted at two levels in order to align with the core purpose of a scoping review. First, evidence mapping (hereafter referred to as evidence mapping) describes the distribution of studies across time, context, design, types of ISS tasks, and assessment practices. The results were also presented using summary tables and descriptive statistics. Second, conceptual mapping (hereafter referred to as conceptual mapping) was understood as the process of coding and systematizing how ISS is defined, what attributes are emphasized, and how ISS is operationalized through tasks and assessment, in order to identify convergences, divergences, and knowledge gaps. In this step, findings from data charting (hereafter referred to as data extraction) were synthesized and cross-compared using the six ISS criteria as an analytic lens ( see Table 2.2 ) to determine convergences, divergences, and gaps in how ISS is conceptualized, operationalized, and assessed. More precisely, each criterion was employed to follow its frequency of occurrence, definitional treatment, associated task characteristics, and associated evaluation processes, thereby facilitating identification of “conceptual keys” and of minimum reporting characteristics necessary for ISS tasks. Taking this conclusion as the basis, the review specifies convergent “conceptual keys”, points of divergence in definitions and operationalizations as well as key gaps, which should be addressed in future research (Levac et al., 2010 ; Peters et al., 2020 ). 3. Results 3.1. Source Selection Results and an Overall Description The number of records at each stage, covering searching, de-duplication, title-abstract screening, full-text review, and inclusion, is reported in the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews flow diagram as described in the method (Tricco et al., 2018 ). The final evidence base used for evidence mapping and conceptual mapping comprises 203 sources. Within this evidence base, the peer-reviewed group includes journal articles and/or peer-reviewed conference proceedings. In addition, a set of academic sources in the form of books, book chapters, and scholarly monographs was included to support the aims of concept clarification and the standardization of technical descriptions (e.g., task specifications, prompts, rubrics, rater training, and validity argumentation), which are often not reported in sufficient detail in shorter empirical articles. While 203 sources were included in the final evidence base and contributed to data charting and mapping, only the sources cited directly in the narrative synthesis appear in the reference list. In terms of temporal distribution, publications are most concentrated in the recent period (2020–2025), followed by 2015–2019, and then the period prior to 2015. Regarding the substantive orientation of the evidence mapping, sources cluster around three thematic strands aligned with the review questions, embracing ISS conceptualization (i.e definitions, attributes, typologies, and roles); ISS operationalization via tasks and performance conditions (i.e preparation time, prompt types, discourse modes, degree of interaction, and classroom conditions); and ISS assessment (i.e assessment domains, rubric structures, rating procedures, and reported evidence of reliability or validity). This organization of results aligns with the logic of a concept-clarification scoping review, in which the first step is describing the scope of evidence (i.e mapping), and then systematize how the concept is understood, how it is elicited, and how it is measured (Arksey & O'malley, 2005 ; Levac et al., 2010 ; Peters et al., 2020 ). 3.2. Review Question 1: How is ISS Defined and Described in Tertiary EFL Context? 3.2.1. Traditional and Expanded Concepts Conceptual mapping suggests that ISS is generally understood in a continuum with two concepts, each historically correlated via inheritance and extension. The traditional strand considers ISS as impromptu speech, primarily monologic, with a focus on “limited preparation,” ability to organize arguments/ideas, and persuasive delivery in short order (Hamilton, 1987 ; Henderson, 1982 ; Yale, 2014 ). In contrast, the expanded or contemporary concept is interested in practical real-time interaction (e.g., classroom discussion, interviews, meetings, spontaneous conversation) where ISS is more focused on responsiveness, turn-taking, contextual sensitivity, and sociolinguistic adaptation in order to fulfill communicative purposes (Nawi et al., 2015 ). Notably, these two concepts do not exclude each other; rather, they describe different “manifestations” of ISS depending on discourse mode (monologue vs. interaction) and the degree of interaction required by the task. 3.2.2. Core Attributes of Impromptu Speaking Skill Synthesizing conceptual descriptions through conceptual mapping shows that the most consistently mentioned attributes include time pressure or limited preparation (i.e. limited time; little or no preparation); unscripted speech production (unscripted delivery/interaction); rapid and coherent idea organization (quick and cohesive idea organization); interactive responding and contextual adaptation (interactive response; context adaptation); and prompts that are often based on personal experience or open-ended situational scenarios. At the same time, multiple sources emphasize an important paradox: while “impromptu” is a task-level condition, ISS as a competence still requires systematic practice to develop fluency, confidence, and stable performance (Henderson, 1982 ; Yale, 2014 ). Taken together, ISS in the evidence base is not described solely by the criterion of “no preparation.” Instead, it is identified as a construct comprising task conditions (time pressure/unscripted), processing demands (idea organization, responding), and adaptation demands (context, interaction). 3.2.3. Conceptual Evolution and Discourse Mode of Impromptu Speaking Skill A salient outcome of conceptual mapping is that ISS is commonly classified along two modes. The first is the conceptual-evolution mode, which ranges from traditional impromptu speech (i.e. monologic, public-speaking oriented, emphasizing logical organization and persuasiveness) to contemporary impromptu interaction (dialogic, emphasizing turn-taking and contextual sensitivity) (Hamilton, 1987 ; Henderson, 1982 ; Nawi et al., 2015 ; Yale, 2014 ). The second is the discourse mode, contrasting monologic performance with dialogic or group performance. These two modes entail substantial differences in assessment focus (e.g., monologic tasks tend to prioritize discourse organization, whereas dialogic tasks tend to prioritize interactive responsiveness and turn-management). 3.3. Review Question 2: How Is ISS Operationalized through Speaking-Task Design and Performance Conditions (e.g., Preparation Time, Stimulus Type, Production Mode, And Degree of Interaction)? 3.3.1. Task parameters used to “create” “Impromptu” Conditions Evidence mapping indicates that ISS is typically operationalized not through a single criterion, but through a combination of task parameters that are intended to create “impromptu” conditions and to require learners to process and produce speech in real time. Within the evidence base, four parameters emerge as the most prominent and can be regarded as key pillars for operationalizing ISS. First, preparation time is commonly specified as ranging from 0 seconds to “very short,” thereby imposing cognitive and linguistic pressure and pushing learners to generate ideas, select language, and organize expression almost simultaneously. Second, the stimulus type is designed in diverse ways to trigger immediate responding, including experience-based prompts, hypothetical scenarios, opinion/argumentation topics, or multimodal prompts (e.g., images and illustrative situations) that “prime” learners’ rapid response processes (Hintz & Huber, 2020 ). Third, the production mode typically differentiates two task groups: monologic tasks (mini-talk/impromptu speech) and interactive tasks (dialogue, pair/group discussion), in which the presence of an audience or interaction partner introduces additional demands related to responsiveness and turn management. Finally, performance constraints such as time limits, requirements to sustain a topic, or requirements anchored in academic/professional contexts are often used to create conditions under which learners’ idea organization and pragmatic adaptability in speech can be observed more clearly. Notably, these results are consistent with the “expanded” conceptualization of ISS, in which when ISS is situated in interactive formats, the parameter of degree of interaction becomes a decisive operational feature, because “impromptu” in interaction is not only about having limited preparation time, but also about the need to respond as the exchange unfolds and to adjust speech in relation to interlocutors and communicative context. In other words, for interaction-oriented ISS tasks, prep time is a necessary but insufficient condition; it is the level of interaction that serves as the key variable shaping the nature and difficulty of the task. 3.3.2. Pedagogical Conditions Supporting the Operationalization of Impromptu Speaking Skill The evidence base describes two clusters of classroom conditions that are commonly associated with increasing the density of opportunities to practice ISS. First, the Flipped Classroom (FC) is described as an instructional organization in which content reception is shifted outside the classroom (often via digital platforms such as MS TEAMS, Learning Management System or Google Classroom), thereby reserving in-class time for practice, discussion, and the completion of speaking tasks. Multiple sources emphasize FC as a structural condition that enables interaction and application-oriented activities in class, and it is frequently linked to outcomes such as motivation, engagement, and improvement in speaking skills (Adnan, 2017 ; Baepler et al., 2014 ; Bergmann & Sams, 2012 ; Cabi, 2018 ; Hung, 2015 ; Mehring, 2016 ). Second, Cooperative Learning (CL) is described as an interaction-organizing system in which learning activities are structured to increase speaking opportunities, individual accountability, and group accountability, thereby foregrounding interaction-oriented components of ISS (e.g., turn-taking, responsiveness, coordination). The evidence includes both practice-oriented syntheses and empirical/applied studies on CL in developing speaking competence and interactional performance (Gillies, 2016 ; Hengki et al., 2017 ; Hong et al., 2022 ; Kagan, 1989 ). At the operational level, these two clusters are often described as complementary in mechanism, in which FC provides “time and a preparation foundation” for in-class speaking activities, whereas CL provides “interactional structures” that require learners to respond quickly and adapt to others. This result directly aligns with the concept-clarification goal stated in the Introduction: ISS is not merely “speaking without preparation,” but rather the capacity for real-time responding under designed interactional conditions. 3.3.3. Barriers Associated with Operationalizing Impromptu Speaking Skill in EFL Classrooms Evidence mapping also identifies a cluster of evidence on barriers, especially when ISS tasks are employed in EFL context. Some well-known barriers are psychological (speaking anxiety, fear of evaluation, lack of confidence) (Dogan & Çifci, 2021 ; Maulida et al., 2024 ); high cognitive load due to the need to organize ideas and produce language in real time (Arifin, 2024 ); linguistic limitations (lexical retrieval, accuracy, and fluency under pressure) (Lumettu & Runtuwene, 2018 ); and limited topic familiarity, which can lead to hesitation or off-focus responses (Arifin, 2024 ; Imron & Hantari, 2019 ). These findings suggest an important descriptive implication for operationalization: ISS tasks should be designed with appropriate preparation and support mechanisms; otherwise, “impromptu” conditions may function as a “stressor” rather than as a tool for developing competence. 3.4. Review Question 3: How Is Impromptu Speaking Skill Assessed, Including the Assessment Domains, Rubric Design and Reported Reliability and Validity Evidence? 3.4.1. Common Assessment Domains for Impromptu Speaking Skill Across many different studies on ISS, the scoring criteria generally echo a view that speaking ability is a complex composite where learners need to process language in real time while also achieving communicative purposes. The domains that are most consistently reported are fluency under time pressure, organization or coherence of discourse, linguistic resources (lexico-grammar), pronunciation and intelligibility, and task completion in communication. Most importantly, fluency tends to be central to this context; ISS takes place only under limited preparation conditions, and raters heavily depend on speed, continuity of the speech stream, and disruption markers for impressions of impromptu performance (Bosker et al., 2013 ). Furthermore, discourse management, which refers the process on how to develop and sustain concepts clearly in brief in a relatively narrow time frame, is considered an important indicator of whether learners can actually control content even while coping with short-term language processing efforts (De Jong et al., 2012 ). Lexical-grammatical control and pronunciation or intelligibility remain basic domains and are crucial in helping to deliver accurate and easily digestible messages consistent with listener-oriented perspectives in speaking assessment (Derwing & Munro, 1997 ; Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2012 ). Importantly, a high number of recent works including the functional or communicative adequacy domain consider the extent to which learners meet task requirements and accomplish communicative goals under real-time conditions, not only linguistic accuracy. Evidence shows that fluency and organization of discourse serve as influential indicators of perceived “adequacy” in speaking tasks (Révész et al., 2016 ). When ISS is used in interactive settings, rubrics commonly add interactional competence, including turn management, timely responding, and co-constructing discourse, features that raters consider as the result of interactional processes rather than purely individual attributes (May, 2011 ). The overall ISS assessment domains typically focus on integrating real-time processing aspects (fluency, coherence) with contextually responsive communicative effectiveness and interaction, indicating that the ISS has an impromptu nature in terms of assessing the constructed competence. 3.4.2. Reliability Reporting Practices and Validity Argumentation Methodological sources within the evidence base emphasize the need to develop a validity argument for score interpretation and to report reliability, particularly inter-rater reliability in speaking assessment (Fulcher, 2024 ; Messick, 1995 ). At the level of scales or criteria, the communicative language ability framework is also used as a foundation for linking assessment criteria to the intended score use and to the task context (Palmer & Bachman, 1996 ) However, evidence mapping indicates that the level of detailed reporting on prompts, task conditions, rating procedures, and rater training is not consistently uniform across sources. This is an important reporting characteristic because ISS is strongly dependent on operationalization conditions; therefore, limited transparency in these elements reduces the comparability of studies and constrains standardized knowledge accumulation. 3.5. Mapping Summary: Key Convergences and Salient Descriptive Gaps The mapping results highlight three convergences. Firstly, ISS is conceptualized along two concepts (traditional monologic and expanded interactive). Secondly, ISS operationalization depends on a combination of task parameters (prep time, prompt, modality, interaction) and classroom conditions, such as FC or CL (Adnan, 2017 ; Bergmann & Sams, 2012 ; Gillies, 2016 ; Hung, 2015 ; Kagan, 1989 ). Finally, ISS assessment commonly centers on domains such as fluency-coherence-appropriateness-interaction and should be grounded in validity argumentation and reliability reporting when applied (Fulcher, 2024 ; Messick, 1995 ; Palmer & Bachman, 1996 ). At the same time, salient descriptive gaps are concentrated in: heterogeneity in definitions and terminological labels; instability in the specification of task parameters; and fragmented transparency in reporting rating procedures and rater training, referring the issues that will be elaborated in the next part with the intended function of a scoping review (Levac et al., 2010 ; Peters et al., 2020 ). 4. Discussion 4.1. Interpretive Synthesis from a “Concept Clarification” Perspective The aim of this scoping review is to clarify how ISS is conceptualized, operationalized, and assessed in tertiary EFL research. The evidence mapping and conceptual mapping results indicate that ISS cannot be reduced to a single, one-dimensional label of “speaking without preparation.” In stead, the sources reflect a conceptual continuum ranging from traditional monologic impromptu speech to contemporary impromptu interaction, in which real-time conditions, rapid idea organization, and responsiveness or adaptation in interaction repeatedly emerge as core pillars. This understanding explains why studies may use the same term “impromptu or spontaneous” while designing substantially different tasks; at the same time, it suggests that the central issue in the field is not only a “lack of studies,” but a lack of conceptual and operational-reporting standardization, which makes evidence difficult to compare and difficult to accumulate over time (Arksey & O'malley, 2005 ; Peters et al., 2020 ; Tricco et al., 2018 ). In this discussion, three contributions are proposed to translate the mapping results into implications that can be used directly in research and practice, embracing a practical definition of ISS based on convergent points, a minimum reporting set for ISS tasks to strengthen transparency and comparability and a research agenda for tertiary EFL that aligns with the identified barriers and classroom conditions. 4.2. Proposing a Operational Definition of Impromptu Speaking Skill Based on Convergent Points 4.2.1. Proposed Operational Definition of Impromptu Speaking Skill Drawing on the convergent points identified through conceptual mapping, ISS in tertiary EFL context may be operationally defined as follows: ISS is the ability to produce spoken English under conditions of limited or no preparation and real-time time pressure, in both monologic and conversational or interactional settings, in which learners must rapidly organize and develop ideas, maintain coherence, and simultaneously respond and adapt flexibly to task demands and/or the unfolding interaction in order to achieve communicative purposes in a specific context. This definition intentionally integrates three interdependent pillars repeatedly emphasized across the evidence base. Firstly, it concerns the performance conditions, where limited preparation, and especially real-time production distinguish ISS from general speaking skills. The second relates to rapid cognitive-linguistic processing, in which learners must form, organize, and develop ideas coherently while speaking. The third highlights communication and adaptation, reflecting the need to align language choices, delivery, and interactional moves with the evolving communicative situation. Importantly, this definition recognizes that ISS does not manifest solely as impromptu monologue or short public speech. In the contemporary EFL settings, ISS frequently appears in conversation-based and interaction-oriented formats, such as interviews, discussions, meetings, or small-group exchanges, where meaning is jointly constructed with others. Under these dialogic conditions, ISS entails not only planning and delivering ideas independently, but also monitoring interlocutors, such as peers, teachers, colleagues, clients etc., taking turns appropriately, and adjusting responses in real time to sustain mutual understanding. This conversational orientation reflects the broader perspective of conceptual evolution considered in the current scoping review, in which ISS is increasingly associated with real-time conversational performance rather than purely mono-speech delivery. Excitedly, based on the above perspectives, ISS is also considered under two dimensions of meaning, in which it simultaneously functions as a sub-skill of speaking skills and a multi-dimensional competence of other lower-level sub-skills ( see Table 4.1 ). Table 4.1 Core components of speaking competence and their relevance to Impromptu Speaking Skill Several key authors Components Speaking Skills Impromptu Speaking Skill Brown ( 2010 ), Putri et al. ( 2020 ), Bachman & Palmer ( 1996 ), Canale & Swain ( 1980 ) Grammar/ Grammatical Competence X Brown ( 2010 ), Putri et al. ( 2020 ), CEFR (Council of Europe) Vocabulary/Lexical range X Brown ( 2010 ), Putri et al. ( 2020 ), CEFR (Council of Europe) Pronunciation X Brown ( 2010 ), Putri et al. ( 2020 ), CEFR (Council of Europe), Burns & Joyce ( 1997 ), Bygate ( 1987 ) Fluency/ Motor-perceptive Skills X X Brown ( 2010 ), Putri et al. ( 2020 ) Comprehension X X CEFR (Council of Europe), Burns & Joyce ( 1997 ) Accuracy X CEFR (Council of Europe) Coherence X X CEFR (Council of Europe), Burns & Joyce ( 1997 ), Bygate ( 1987 ) Interaction X X Bachman & Palmer ( 1996 ), CEFR (Council of Europe) Coherence and cohesion X X Bachman & Palmer ( 1996 ) Pragmatic Competence X X Bachman & Palmer ( 1996 ), Canale & Swain ( 1980 ) Strategic Competence X X Burns & Joyce ( 1997 ), Bygate ( 1987 ), Canale & Swain ( 1980 ) Discourse Management X X Bygate ( 1987 ) Motor-perceptive Skills X X Canale & Swain ( 1980 ) Sociolinguistic competence X X Indeed, speaking competence comprise three core components in general, including linguistic foundation components (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension) (Brown, 2010 ; Burns & Joyce, 1997 ; Bygate, 1987 ; Putri et al., 2020 ), functional and communicative competence (discourse management, interactional competence, pragmatic appropriateness, and strategic competence) (Burns & Joyce, 1997 ; Bygate, 1987 ; Canale & Swain, 1980 ; Council of Europe, 2001 ; Palmer & Bachman, 1996 ) and interactional-sociolinguistic competence components, which emphasises coordinating linguistic, discourse, and sociolinguistic resources to interact and co-construct meaning in real-time communication context (Burns & Joyce, 1997 ; Bygate, 1987 ; Canale & Swain, 1980 ; Hall, 2016 ; May, 2011 ). Meanwhile, ISS requires learners to simultaneously mobilise foundational linguistic resources, functional and communicative competence, and interactional and sociolinguistic competence with no or limited preparation and real-time performance. In other words, instead of relying solely on linguistic accuracy and fluency, ISS is closely associated with learners’ ability to manage discourse, negotiate meaning, and adjust pragmatically during spontaneous interaction. 4.2.2. Implications of the operational definition This practical definition addresses two conceptual risks identified in the Results. First, it prevents ISS from being conflated with “spontaneous speaking” in an overly general sense by foregrounding both performance conditions and adaptive communication demands as simultaneous defining features. Second, it clarifies that ISS should be understood as a continuum across discourse modes, where impromptu monologic speech and conversational/interactive ISS represent different—yet conceptually connected—manifestations of the same competence. This framing provides a more coherent basis for interpreting prior studies, designing future research, and aligning assessment criteria with communicative competence perspectives in tertiary EFL settings. Declarations Author Contribution T.T.N. conceptualized the study, designed the review methodology, conducted the literature search and screening, performed data extraction and analysis, and drafted the main manuscript. T.T.K. contributed to the development of the methodological framework, assisted with data interpretation, and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. T.T.K and V.T.L. supported the literature search, data charting, and preparation of tables and figures, and contributed to manuscript editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript. References Adnan, M. (2017). Perceptions of senior-year ELT students for flipped classroom: A materials development course. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 30 (3–4), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1301958 Arifin, S. (2024). Impromptu Speech Delivery among EFL Graduate Students: Challenges and Potential Strategies. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif , 14 (1), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v14.i1.202430 Arksey, H., & O'malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology , 8 (1), 19–32. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education , 78 , 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006 Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day . International society for technology in education. Bosker, H. R., Pinget, A. F., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & De Jong, N. H. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing , 30 (2), 159–175. Brown, H. D. (2010). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on Speaking . ERIC. Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking . Oxford University Press. Cabi, E. (2018). The impact of the flipped classroom model on studentsБ≥ academic achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , 19 (3), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3482 Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of commuicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Council of Europe. (2001). C. f. C. C.-o. E. C. M. L. D. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment . Cambridge University Press. De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in second language acquisition , 34 (1), 5–34. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in second language acquisition , 19 (1), 1–16. Dogan, F., & Çifci, S. (2021). The Effect of Storytelling Skill Acquisition on the Impromptu Speaking Attitudes and Anxiety Levels of 6th Grade Students. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies , 9 (3), 189–199. Fulcher, G. (2024). Practical language testing . Routledge. Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online) , 41 (3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3 Hall, G. (2016). The Routledge handbook of English language teaching . Routledge Abingdon. Hamilton, N. G. (1987). Public speaking for college and career . McGraw-Hill. Henderson, D. (1982). Impromptu speaking as a tool to improve non-native speakers' fluency in English. JALT Journal , 4 , 75–87. Hengki, H., Jabu, B., & Salija, K. (2017). The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategy Through English Village for Teaching Speaking skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research , 8 (2), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0802.12 Hintz, E. A., & Huber, A. A. (2020). Verbs, visuals, and vignettes: incorporating images into the impromptu speaking exercise. Communication Teacher , 34 (3), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2019.1653488 Hong, Y., Chen, L. G., Huang, J. H., Tsai, Y. Y., & Chang, T. Y. (2022). The impact of cooperative learning method on the oral proficiency of learners of the training program for English tourist guides. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 866863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866863 Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 28 (1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.967701 Imron, A., & Hantari, W. C. (2019). EFL students' attitudes toward public speaking and anxiety in speaking impromptu speech. CaLLs: Journal of Culture Arts Literature and Linguistics , 5 (1), 49–58. Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in second language acquisition , 34 (3), 475–505. Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational leadership , 47 (4), 12–15. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation science , 5 (1), 69. Lumettu, A., & Runtuwene, T. L. (2018). Developing the studentsБ≥ English speaking ability through impromptu speaking method. IOP Conference Series: Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Maulida, N. H., Faridah, D., & Tarwana, W. (2024). An analysis of students' speaking anxiety in performing impromptu presentation. Journal of English Education Program , 11 (1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.25157/(jeep).v11i1.13554 May, L. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language Assessment Quarterly , 8 (2), 127–145. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist , 38 , 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6 Mehring, J. (2016). Present research on the flipped classroom and potential tools for the EFL classroom. Computers in the Schools , 33 (1), 1–10. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American psychologist , 50 (9), 741. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Cognitive-affective theory of learning with media. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning , 161–177. Nawi, R. A., Yasin, B., & Champion, I. C. R. (2015). Impromptu: Great impromptu speaking is never just impromptu. Studies in English Language and Education , 2 (2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v2i2.2697 Palmer, A. S., & Bachman, L. F. (1996). Language testing in practice: designing and developing useful language tests . In. Oxford University Press. Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). 10. Scoping reviews. JBI manual for evidence synthesis . Putri, S. A., Amri, S., & Ahmad, A. (2020). THE STUDENTS’DIFFICULTIES FACTORS IN SPEAKING. J-shelves of indragiri (JSI) , 1 (2), 115–129. Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied linguistics , 37 (6), 828–848. Suzuki, S., & Révész, A. (2023). Measuring speaking and writing fluency: A methodological synthesis focusing on automaticity. Practice and automatization in second language research (pp. 235–264). Routledge. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., & Weeks, L. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine , 169 (7), 467–473. Yale, R. N. (2014). The impromptu gauntlet: An experiential strategy for developing lasting communication skills. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly , 77 (3), 281–296. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8985000","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":598149640,"identity":"2c411227-a049-44b2-8bf6-6ad31dceac32","order_by":0,"name":"The Khoa Tran","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Finance - Marketing","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"The","middleName":"Khoa","lastName":"Tran","suffix":""},{"id":598149647,"identity":"1f8c6dc7-4a90-4979-8ca1-353c420c3ea8","order_by":1,"name":"Tran Tin Nghi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ho Chi Minh City University of Industry and Trade","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tran","middleName":"Tin","lastName":"Nghi","suffix":""},{"id":598149651,"identity":"9be0ccfe-6a3d-42c9-8e6c-72614039a7e8","order_by":2,"name":"Thuy Linh Vo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ho Chi Minh City Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thuy","middleName":"Linh","lastName":"Vo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-27 07:54:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8985000/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8985000/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103710270,"identity":"ba13767a-1083-42ab-9cf0-73de12cb4032","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-02 03:25:23","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":177911,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigure 2.1 The PRISMA-ScR flow diagram.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e(*Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, LLBA; PsycINFO; ** Google Scholar, PubMed or Research Gate; ***Mendeley)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8985000/v1/118d6538dc48f4794a92d77d.png"},{"id":104399647,"identity":"4370c31c-2181-4c83-b688-e37fcf163dbc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:07:05","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1536114,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8985000/v1/849f74e0-0872-4383-81fc-2a71b114e6b0.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eConceptualizing Impromptu Speaking in Tertiary EFL Context: A Scoping Review of Definitions, Operation, and Assessment Practices\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn a tertiary EFL context, the objective of acquiring communicative competence is therefore not just \u0026ldquo;speaking correctly\u0026rdquo;. It also includes the ability to use language fluidly and appropriately in context, and in conversation as in real communicative situations. From the perspective of communicative language ability, learners must mobilize all language resources and strategic competence to fulfill speaking tasks under contexts where communicative information and purposes as well as interactional demands are continuously changing (Palmer \u0026amp; Bachman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). However, in practical teaching and research, ISS, which frequently involves teaching and learning speaking and communication, has been far from adequately standardized both in conceptualization and assessment. This sub-speaking skill is relevant to the ability in which learners need to respond rapidly with little or no time for preparation. At the cognitive-linguistic level, spontaneous speaking places learners under time pressure for speaking, in which releasing ideas, selecting sentence structures, using vocabulary, organizing discourse and checking mistakes all occur simultaneously. This makes ISS a highly \u0026ldquo;performance-oriented\u0026rdquo; ability, associated with the automation of language production and fluency in spontaneous speech (Suzuki \u0026amp; R\u0026eacute;v\u0026eacute;sz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn education, ISS is frequently conceptualized as an \u0026ldquo;output\u0026rdquo; competence since it points out learners\u0026rsquo; ability to communicate in unplanned situations, which are familiar in interactive classrooms and modern educational and working contexts today. Nevertheless, the spontaneous feature of ISS also raises a fundamental conundrum, in which whether ISS is being recognised as a unified concept, or whether it just refers to several categories of speaking tasks or only a monologue? This has been noted in the literature that the term impromptu speaking is often used to refer to spontaneous speech, unplanned speech, or speaking tasks with \u0026ldquo;little or no preparation time.\u0026rdquo; At the same time, studies usually operationalize task conditions in vastly different manners, regarding preparation time, e.g 0 seconds, a few tens of seconds or a few minutes, communicative type, e.g open-ended questions, hypothetical scenarios, pictorial/charts, or academic topics, interaction format, for example monologue, dialogue or group discussion, and assessment requirements, such as fluency, accuracy, coherence, communicative strategies, and so forth. This diversity adds to the heterogeneity of the evidence base involving the concept of ISS. Without a clearly stated definition, knowledge acquisition can become challenging, in which findings are difficult to compare and synthesize, and pedagogical approach are less aligned with what is expected to enhance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conceptual issue surrounding ISS becomes even more critical as emerging instructional models expand opportunities for spontaneous speaking in the classroom. For example, flipped classroom (FC) emphasizes shifting input delivery to the pre-class phase in order to reserve class time for interaction and practice, thereby enabling a higher density of speaking activities and feedback (Bergmann \u0026amp; Sams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Cooperative learning (CL) provides interactional organizational structures that support learners in taking turns, negotiating meaning, and co-constructing spoken products within a peer-supported environment (Kagan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). At the level of digital learning-material design and interactive activity design, principles from the cognitive-affective theory of learning with media further suggest that, when activities are appropriately designed (e.g., through guidance, feedback, and pacing control), learners may better manage cognitive and affective load when processing complex tasks (Mayer \u0026amp; Moreno, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Moreno \u0026amp; Mayer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, even under \u0026ldquo;more favorable\u0026rdquo; teaching conditions, if ISS still lacks a clear conceptual and operational framework, the design of teaching approaches or methods, the selection of techniques, and the construction of assessment criteria may remain inconsistent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor these reasons, this article proposes conducting a scoping review with a focus on concept clarification of ISS in the tertiary EFL context. A scoping review is appropriate when the purpose is to map the knowledge framework, identify how a concept is defined and operationalized, and describe gaps that require further investigation. The review process and reporting will be guided by methodological recommendations for scoping reviews and by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting standard (Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tricco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, this scoping review aims to clarify how ISS has been defined, how it has been operationalized through teaching speaking conditions, and how it has been assessed in tertiary EFL context. The aims are presented in the three review questions in section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2.2\u003c/span\u003e. By systematizing existing approaches, the article is expected to contribute a clearer conceptual foundation for both research and practice aimed at developing impromptu speaking competence in tertiary EFL education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Review Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopted a scoping review design with a concept clarification orientation in order to systematically map how ISS is conceptualized, operationalized through speaking-task features and performance conditions, and assessed in the tertiary EFL context. The choice of a scoping review aligns with the aim of clarifying the scope of existing knowledge and standardizing both the understanding and reporting of a concept that is \u0026ldquo;multi-component\u0026rdquo; in nature and often used inconsistently in speaking research and speaking assessment. The scoping review procedure was developed based on the foundational methodological framework (Arksey \u0026amp; O'malley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), the rigor-enhancing extension (Levac et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), and it followed the updated guidance for scoping reviews in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). To ensure transparency and auditability of the entire process, the review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (Tricco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Review Questions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scoping review focused on three a priori review questions, including\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1) How is ISS defined and described in tertiary EFL context? (2) How is ISS operationalized through speaking-task design and performance conditions (e.g., preparation time, stimulus type, production mode, and degree of interaction)? and (3) How is ISS assessed, including the assessment domains, rubric design and reported reliability and validity evidence?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe criteria for selecting evidence sources were specified using the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework (Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of population, the review included evidence in which the primary participants are tertiary EFL learners. Studies focusing on teachers were also considered if and only if their content is directly related to ISS task design or ISS assessment practices (e.g., rubric development, prompt design, rater training, or descriptions of rating decision-making processes).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, the central concept is ISS, which closely relates terms that clearly indicate limited or near-zero preparation and/or real-time oral responding, including impromptu speaking, spontaneous speaking, unplanned speech, extemporaneous speaking, or real-time oral responding etc. A study is included when it satisfies at least one of the following conditions, covering it provides a definition/description of ISS, including both explicitly or implicitly, it describes a task meeting \u0026ldquo;impromptu or spontaneous\u0026rdquo; criteria via task parameters (e.g., zero or very short preparation time; immediate response requirements; restrictions on consulting resources or pre-writing) or it employs a assessment approach that the authors label as intended to measure spontaneous or impromptu speaking ability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the context is tertiary EFL setting, including speaking or oral communication courses, task-based speaking classrooms, or technology-supported learning environments for speaking practice at the university level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen it comes to types of evidence sources, the current review prioritized peer-reviewed journal articles, book, book sections and peer-reviewed conference proceedings. However, because concept clarification and measurement issues often require detailed technical descriptions, grey literature (e.g., dissertations or thesis) is considered selectively when it provides information on prompts, rubrics, rater training, and reliability that peer-reviewed articles sometimes report incompletely.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNoticeably, the study excluded the following sources, including high school (or K-12) studies when tertiary-level data cannot be separated, opinions or ideas that lack methodological description or lack substantive content on impromptu speaking activities or ISS assessment and studies on speaking in general that provide no evidence of operationalizing impromptu, spontaneous or limited preparation conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo maximize mapping coverage and avoid missing key evidence sources, the review did not impose a specific start year; in stead, it prioritized coverage of the modern researches period in speaking tasks and speaking assessment from after 2000. Moreover, English is the preferred language; other languages are included only when the research team can process them consistently to ensure reliability in screening and extraction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Data Sources and Search Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe search strategy was designed following the three-step process recommended by JBI for scoping reviews (Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). First, an exploratory search was conducted to identify core terms and commonly used synonymous keywords appearing in the titles or abstracts or keywords of studies relevant to ISS. Second, based on findings from the exploratory step, a full search was implemented across the main databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, LLBA, PsycINFO and scholarly research tools (Google Scholar, PubMed and Research Gate) may also be added if the review scope needs to cover studies related to cognitive processing or performance under time pressure in speaking tasks. Thirdly, the review conducts citation tracking and screens the reference lists of key articles in both directions (i.e backward and forward citation searching) to increase coverage and reduce the risk of missing relevant evidence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe search string was structured around term clusters representing, comprising ISS or spontaneous or unplanned; speaking or oral communication; EFL context; higher education or tertiary settings; and speaking task or assessment or rubric. Each illustrative string is adjusted to the syntax of each database, embracing (\u0026ldquo;impromptu speaking\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;spontaneous speaking\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;unplanned speech\u0026rdquo; OR extemporaneous OR \u0026ldquo;real-time\u0026rdquo;) AND (speaking OR \u0026ldquo;oral communication\u0026rdquo;) AND (EFL OR \u0026ldquo;foreign language\u0026rdquo;) AND (tertiary OR universit* OR \u0026ldquo;higher education\u0026rdquo; OR college) AND (task* OR prompt* OR rubric* OR assess* OR rating). The search date, database, the number of results by database, and the detailed syntax are fully documented to enable reporting in accordance with PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (Tricco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e2.5. Reference Management, De-Duplication, and Study Screening\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll search results were exported to EndNote for de-duplication prior to screening. The screening process consisted of two rounds. In round 1, the author screened titles and abstracts based on the PCC criteria and categorized records as \u0026ldquo;include,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;exclude,\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;full-text required\u0026rdquo;. In round 2, retained articles were read in full to make final inclusion decisions; reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage were documented using standardized reason categories (e.g., wrong context; not meeting impromptu/spontaneous conditions; not tertiary level; insufficient task/assessment information). In borderline cases or when there was substantial ambiguity in interpreting the PCC criteria, the author consulted the research supervisor to reach agreement on how the criteria should be operationalized before finalizing decisions. All decisions and exclusion reasons were fully tracked to ensure the screening process is auditable and reproducible. The entire screening process and the number of studies at each step are presented using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews flow diagram (Tricco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cem\u003esee\u003c/em\u003e Fig.\u0026nbsp;2.1).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e(*Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, LLBA; PsycINFO; ** Google Scholar, PubMed or Research Gate; ***Mendeley)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eFigure 2.1 The PRISMA-ScR flow diagram.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 73 full-text reports were excluded for reasons. The most common reason was that the population or context did not align with tertiary-level EFL settings, followed by studies in which impromptu or spontaneous speaking was not clearly operationalised. Details are presented on the following table (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2.1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2.1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFull-Text reports excluded, with reasons (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;73)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReason\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReason 1: Wrong population or context\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were not at tertiary level EFL learners, or tertiary-level data could not be isolated from other levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReason 2: Concept not aligned with impromptu/spontaneous speaking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpeaking activities did not involve limited preparation or real-time oral responding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReason 3: Insufficient task or assessment description\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTasks or activities and assessment criteria (e.g., prompt type, preparation time, rubric, rater procedures) were insufficiently reported for charting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReason 4: Not focused on speaking performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies mainly examined attitudes, curriculum, technology use, or general language outcomes without analysing speaking performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReason 5: Not sufficiently related to tertiary-level speaking development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent was relevant to EFL but not clearly linked to speaking competence development in tertiary EFL context\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal excluded\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6. Data Extraction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs data charting to standardize information for concept mapping, rather than extracting data for the purpose of synthesizing intervention effects. A charting form was developed and piloted on a small set of articles (or pilot charting) to ensure adequate coverage and consistency before full extraction was conducted. The data fields include descriptive study information (i.e authors, year, country or region, EFL context, participants, sample size, design), ISS conceptualization (explicit definitions, implicit interpretations, alternative terms, emphasized core attributes), ISS operationalization through tasks (stimulus type, preparation time, performance conditions, production mode, degree of task constraints, degree of interaction) and the assessment, such as rubric, criteria, rating scale, number of raters, rater training, rating procedures, evidence of reliability or validity where available, and the transparency level of rubric descriptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo ensure consistency in standardizing and comparing descriptions of ISS across studies, data charting was conducted using an analytic lens consisting of six ISS criteria (\u003cem\u003esee\u003c/em\u003e Appendix A). These six criteria were used as coding categories to record how each study conceptualized, operationalized, or assessed key aspects of ISS, including fluency, coherence and cohesion, strategic responsiveness, pragmatic appropriateness, topical or language development, and interactional engagement (\u003cem\u003esee\u003c/em\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2.2\u003c/span\u003e). This analytic lens functions as an organizational and comparative framework for concept mapping, and it is not used as an exclusion criterion for evidence sources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2.2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analytic lens for data charting and conceptual mapping.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eISS Criteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExample keywords/phrases for charting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFluency\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Maintain a relatively smooth speech stream with minimal hesitation and a natural rhythm, indicating the level of proficiency in language production under real-time conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Fluency; smooth flow; pauses or hesitation; breakdown fluency; speech rate; natural rhythm; filled pauses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCoherence \u0026amp; cohesion\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Organize and sustain ideas in a logical structure, ensuring content linkage and discourse continuity so that listeners can follow the progression of reasoning/idea development in impromptu speech.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Coherence; cohesion; logical organization; discourse markers; idea linkage; structured response; clear progression.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStrategic responsiveness\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Identify communicative goals and evaluate the situation in real time, then adjust speech through strategies such as paraphrasing, self-repair, or compensating for linguistic gaps to sustain communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Strategic competence; responsiveness; self-repair; paraphrase; circumlocution; compensation strategies; monitoring; real-time adjustment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePragmatic appropriateness\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Reflects the extent to which lexical choices, grammatical structures, and delivery style are aligned with communicative function, context, and participant roles, demonstrating sociolinguistic appropriateness and communicative intent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Pragmatic appropriateness; sociolinguistic; register; politeness; tone/style; functional language; role-appropriate; context-appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTopical/language development\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Make connections and build, elaborate and connect ideas in speech by accessing their topical knowledge and available linguistic resources (from experience or long-term knowledge); hence providing depth and coverage of content in their speaking in spontaneous contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Topical development; idea elaboration; content expansion; supporting details; examples; relevance; lexical range; language development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInteractional engagement\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Mirror how learners interact with others by listening, responding, sustaining interaction (e.g., turn coordination) and maintaining interactional flow with peers/instructors during speaking tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Interactional engagement; turn-taking; responsiveness; active listening; sustaining exchange; backchannels; negotiation of meaning; dialogue management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7. Critical Appraisal of Individual Sources\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis review did not conduct a formal critical appraisal of included sources. Instead, it recorded reporting transparency indicators (e.g., prompt specification, rubric availability, rater training, reliability evidence) as part of data charting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.8. Synthesis Approach\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSynthesis approach was conducted at two levels in order to align with the core purpose of a scoping review. First, evidence mapping (hereafter referred to as evidence mapping) describes the distribution of studies across time, context, design, types of ISS tasks, and assessment practices. The results were also presented using summary tables and descriptive statistics. Second, conceptual mapping (hereafter referred to as conceptual mapping) was understood as the process of coding and systematizing how ISS is defined, what attributes are emphasized, and how ISS is operationalized through tasks and assessment, in order to identify convergences, divergences, and knowledge gaps. In this step, findings from data charting (hereafter referred to as data extraction) were synthesized and cross-compared using the six ISS criteria as an analytic lens (\u003cem\u003esee\u003c/em\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2.2\u003c/span\u003e) to determine convergences, divergences, and gaps in how ISS is conceptualized, operationalized, and assessed. More precisely, each criterion was employed to follow its frequency of occurrence, definitional treatment, associated task characteristics, and associated evaluation processes, thereby facilitating identification of \u0026ldquo;conceptual keys\u0026rdquo; and of minimum reporting characteristics necessary for ISS tasks. Taking this conclusion as the basis, the review specifies convergent \u0026ldquo;conceptual keys\u0026rdquo;, points of divergence in definitions and operationalizations as well as key gaps, which should be addressed in future research (Levac et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Source Selection Results and an Overall Description\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of records at each stage, covering searching, de-duplication, title-abstract screening, full-text review, and inclusion, is reported in the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews flow diagram as described in the method (Tricco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The final evidence base used for evidence mapping and conceptual mapping comprises 203 sources. Within this evidence base, the peer-reviewed group includes journal articles and/or peer-reviewed conference proceedings. In addition, a set of academic sources in the form of books, book chapters, and scholarly monographs was included to support the aims of concept clarification and the standardization of technical descriptions (e.g., task specifications, prompts, rubrics, rater training, and validity argumentation), which are often not reported in sufficient detail in shorter empirical articles. While 203 sources were included in the final evidence base and contributed to data charting and mapping, only the sources cited directly in the narrative synthesis appear in the reference list.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of temporal distribution, publications are most concentrated in the recent period (2020\u0026ndash;2025), followed by 2015\u0026ndash;2019, and then the period prior to 2015. Regarding the substantive orientation of the evidence mapping, sources cluster around three thematic strands aligned with the review questions, embracing ISS conceptualization (i.e definitions, attributes, typologies, and roles); ISS operationalization via tasks and performance conditions (i.e preparation time, prompt types, discourse modes, degree of interaction, and classroom conditions); and ISS assessment (i.e assessment domains, rubric structures, rating procedures, and reported evidence of reliability or validity). This organization of results aligns with the logic of a concept-clarification scoping review, in which the first step is describing the scope of evidence (i.e mapping), and then systematize how the concept is understood, how it is elicited, and how it is measured (Arksey \u0026amp; O'malley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Levac et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Review Question 1: How is ISS Defined and Described in Tertiary EFL Context?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.1. Traditional and Expanded Concepts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptual mapping suggests that ISS is generally understood in a continuum with two concepts, each historically correlated via inheritance and extension.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe traditional strand considers ISS as impromptu speech, primarily monologic, with a focus on \u0026ldquo;limited preparation,\u0026rdquo; ability to organize arguments/ideas, and persuasive delivery in short order (Hamilton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Henderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e; Yale, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, the expanded or contemporary concept is interested in practical real-time interaction (e.g., classroom discussion, interviews, meetings, spontaneous conversation) where ISS is more focused on responsiveness, turn-taking, contextual sensitivity, and sociolinguistic adaptation in order to fulfill communicative purposes (Nawi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, these two concepts do not exclude each other; rather, they describe different \u0026ldquo;manifestations\u0026rdquo; of ISS depending on discourse mode (monologue vs. interaction) and the degree of interaction required by the task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.2. Core Attributes of Impromptu Speaking Skill\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSynthesizing conceptual descriptions through conceptual mapping shows that the most consistently mentioned attributes include time pressure or limited preparation (i.e. limited time; little or no preparation); unscripted speech production (unscripted delivery/interaction); rapid and coherent idea organization (quick and cohesive idea organization); interactive responding and contextual adaptation (interactive response; context adaptation); and prompts that are often based on personal experience or open-ended situational scenarios. At the same time, multiple sources emphasize an important paradox: while \u0026ldquo;impromptu\u0026rdquo; is a task-level condition, ISS as a competence still requires systematic practice to develop fluency, confidence, and stable performance (Henderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e; Yale, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, ISS in the evidence base is not described solely by the criterion of \u0026ldquo;no preparation.\u0026rdquo; Instead, it is identified as a construct comprising task conditions (time pressure/unscripted), processing demands (idea organization, responding), and adaptation demands (context, interaction).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.3. Conceptual Evolution and Discourse Mode of Impromptu Speaking Skill\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA salient outcome of conceptual mapping is that ISS is commonly classified along two modes. The first is the conceptual-evolution mode, which ranges from traditional impromptu speech (i.e. monologic, public-speaking oriented, emphasizing logical organization and persuasiveness) to contemporary impromptu interaction (dialogic, emphasizing turn-taking and contextual sensitivity) (Hamilton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Henderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e; Nawi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Yale, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second is the discourse mode, contrasting monologic performance with dialogic or group performance. These two modes entail substantial differences in assessment focus (e.g., monologic tasks tend to prioritize discourse organization, whereas dialogic tasks tend to prioritize interactive responsiveness and turn-management).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e3.3. Review Question 2: How Is ISS Operationalized through Speaking-Task Design and Performance Conditions (e.g., Preparation Time, Stimulus Type, Production Mode, And Degree of Interaction)?\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.1. Task parameters used to \u0026ldquo;create\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Impromptu\u0026rdquo; Conditions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence mapping indicates that ISS is typically operationalized not through a single criterion, but through a combination of task parameters that are intended to create \u0026ldquo;impromptu\u0026rdquo; conditions and to require learners to process and produce speech in real time. Within the evidence base, four parameters emerge as the most prominent and can be regarded as key pillars for operationalizing ISS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, preparation time is commonly specified as ranging from 0 seconds to \u0026ldquo;very short,\u0026rdquo; thereby imposing cognitive and linguistic pressure and pushing learners to generate ideas, select language, and organize expression almost simultaneously. Second, the stimulus type is designed in diverse ways to trigger immediate responding, including experience-based prompts, hypothetical scenarios, opinion/argumentation topics, or multimodal prompts (e.g., images and illustrative situations) that \u0026ldquo;prime\u0026rdquo; learners\u0026rsquo; rapid response processes (Hintz \u0026amp; Huber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Third, the production mode typically differentiates two task groups: monologic tasks (mini-talk/impromptu speech) and interactive tasks (dialogue, pair/group discussion), in which the presence of an audience or interaction partner introduces additional demands related to responsiveness and turn management. Finally, performance constraints such as time limits, requirements to sustain a topic, or requirements anchored in academic/professional contexts are often used to create conditions under which learners\u0026rsquo; idea organization and pragmatic adaptability in speech can be observed more clearly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, these results are consistent with the \u0026ldquo;expanded\u0026rdquo; conceptualization of ISS, in which when ISS is situated in interactive formats, the parameter of degree of interaction becomes a decisive operational feature, because \u0026ldquo;impromptu\u0026rdquo; in interaction is not only about having limited preparation time, but also about the need to respond as the exchange unfolds and to adjust speech in relation to interlocutors and communicative context. In other words, for interaction-oriented ISS tasks, prep time is a necessary but insufficient condition; it is the level of interaction that serves as the key variable shaping the nature and difficulty of the task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.2. Pedagogical Conditions Supporting the Operationalization of Impromptu Speaking Skill\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evidence base describes two clusters of classroom conditions that are commonly associated with increasing the density of opportunities to practice ISS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the Flipped Classroom (FC) is described as an instructional organization in which content reception is shifted outside the classroom (often via digital platforms such as MS TEAMS, Learning Management System or Google Classroom), thereby reserving in-class time for practice, discussion, and the completion of speaking tasks. Multiple sources emphasize FC as a structural condition that enables interaction and application-oriented activities in class, and it is frequently linked to outcomes such as motivation, engagement, and improvement in speaking skills (Adnan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Baepler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Bergmann \u0026amp; Sams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Cabi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Hung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Mehring, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, Cooperative Learning (CL) is described as an interaction-organizing system in which learning activities are structured to increase speaking opportunities, individual accountability, and group accountability, thereby foregrounding interaction-oriented components of ISS (e.g., turn-taking, responsiveness, coordination). The evidence includes both practice-oriented syntheses and empirical/applied studies on CL in developing speaking competence and interactional performance (Gillies, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Hengki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Hong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Kagan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the operational level, these two clusters are often described as complementary in mechanism, in which FC provides \u0026ldquo;time and a preparation foundation\u0026rdquo; for in-class speaking activities, whereas CL provides \u0026ldquo;interactional structures\u0026rdquo; that require learners to respond quickly and adapt to others. This result directly aligns with the concept-clarification goal stated in the Introduction: ISS is not merely \u0026ldquo;speaking without preparation,\u0026rdquo; but rather the capacity for real-time responding under designed interactional conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.3. Barriers Associated with Operationalizing Impromptu Speaking Skill in EFL Classrooms\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence mapping also identifies a cluster of evidence on barriers, especially when ISS tasks are employed in EFL context. Some well-known barriers are psychological (speaking anxiety, fear of evaluation, lack of confidence) (Dogan \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;ifci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Maulida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); high cognitive load due to the need to organize ideas and produce language in real time (Arifin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); linguistic limitations (lexical retrieval, accuracy, and fluency under pressure) (Lumettu \u0026amp; Runtuwene, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e); and limited topic familiarity, which can lead to hesitation or off-focus responses (Arifin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Imron \u0026amp; Hantari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). These findings suggest an important descriptive implication for operationalization: ISS tasks should be designed with appropriate preparation and support mechanisms; otherwise, \u0026ldquo;impromptu\u0026rdquo; conditions may function as a \u0026ldquo;stressor\u0026rdquo; rather than as a tool for developing competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e3.4. Review Question 3: How Is Impromptu Speaking Skill Assessed, Including the Assessment Domains, Rubric Design and Reported Reliability and Validity Evidence?\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.1. Common Assessment Domains for Impromptu Speaking Skill\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross many different studies on ISS, the scoring criteria generally echo a view that speaking ability is a complex composite where learners need to process language in real time while also achieving communicative purposes. The domains that are most consistently reported are fluency under time pressure, organization or coherence of discourse, linguistic resources (lexico-grammar), pronunciation and intelligibility, and task completion in communication. Most importantly, fluency tends to be central to this context; ISS takes place only under limited preparation conditions, and raters heavily depend on speed, continuity of the speech stream, and disruption markers for impressions of impromptu performance (Bosker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, discourse management, which refers the process on how to develop and sustain concepts clearly in brief in a relatively narrow time frame, is considered an important indicator of whether learners can actually control content even while coping with short-term language processing efforts (De Jong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Lexical-grammatical control and pronunciation or intelligibility remain basic domains and are crucial in helping to deliver accurate and easily digestible messages consistent with listener-oriented perspectives in speaking assessment (Derwing \u0026amp; Munro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Isaacs \u0026amp; Trofimovich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, a high number of recent works including the functional or communicative adequacy domain consider the extent to which learners meet task requirements and accomplish communicative goals under real-time conditions, not only linguistic accuracy. Evidence shows that fluency and organization of discourse serve as influential indicators of perceived \u0026ldquo;adequacy\u0026rdquo; in speaking tasks (R\u0026eacute;v\u0026eacute;sz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). When ISS is used in interactive settings, rubrics commonly add interactional competence, including turn management, timely responding, and co-constructing discourse, features that raters consider as the result of interactional processes rather than purely individual attributes (May, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The overall ISS assessment domains typically focus on integrating real-time processing aspects (fluency, coherence) with contextually responsive communicative effectiveness and interaction, indicating that the ISS has an impromptu nature in terms of assessing the constructed competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.2. Reliability Reporting Practices and Validity Argumentation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethodological sources within the evidence base emphasize the need to develop a validity argument for score interpretation and to report reliability, particularly inter-rater reliability in speaking assessment (Fulcher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Messick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). At the level of scales or criteria, the communicative language ability framework is also used as a foundation for linking assessment criteria to the intended score use and to the task context (Palmer \u0026amp; Bachman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, evidence mapping indicates that the level of detailed reporting on prompts, task conditions, rating procedures, and rater training is not consistently uniform across sources. This is an important reporting characteristic because ISS is strongly dependent on operationalization conditions; therefore, limited transparency in these elements reduces the comparability of studies and constrains standardized knowledge accumulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Mapping Summary: Key Convergences and Salient Descriptive Gaps\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mapping results highlight three convergences. Firstly, ISS is conceptualized along two concepts (traditional monologic and expanded interactive). Secondly, ISS operationalization depends on a combination of task parameters (prep time, prompt, modality, interaction) and classroom conditions, such as FC or CL (Adnan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Bergmann \u0026amp; Sams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Gillies, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Hung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Kagan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, ISS assessment commonly centers on domains such as fluency-coherence-appropriateness-interaction and should be grounded in validity argumentation and reliability reporting when applied (Fulcher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Messick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Palmer \u0026amp; Bachman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, salient descriptive gaps are concentrated in: heterogeneity in definitions and terminological labels; instability in the specification of task parameters; and fragmented transparency in reporting rating procedures and rater training, referring the issues that will be elaborated in the next part with the intended function of a scoping review (Levac et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Interpretive Synthesis from a \u0026ldquo;Concept Clarification\u0026rdquo; Perspective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aim of this scoping review is to clarify how ISS is conceptualized, operationalized, and assessed in tertiary EFL research. The evidence mapping and conceptual mapping results indicate that ISS cannot be reduced to a single, one-dimensional label of \u0026ldquo;speaking without preparation.\u0026rdquo; In stead, the sources reflect a conceptual continuum ranging from traditional monologic impromptu speech to contemporary impromptu interaction, in which real-time conditions, rapid idea organization, and responsiveness or adaptation in interaction repeatedly emerge as core pillars. This understanding explains why studies may use the same term \u0026ldquo;impromptu or spontaneous\u0026rdquo; while designing substantially different tasks; at the same time, it suggests that the central issue in the field is not only a \u0026ldquo;lack of studies,\u0026rdquo; but a lack of conceptual and operational-reporting standardization, which makes evidence difficult to compare and difficult to accumulate over time (Arksey \u0026amp; O'malley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tricco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In this discussion, three contributions are proposed to translate the mapping results into implications that can be used directly in research and practice, embracing a practical definition of ISS based on convergent points, a minimum reporting set for ISS tasks to strengthen transparency and comparability and a research agenda for tertiary EFL that aligns with the identified barriers and classroom conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Proposing a Operational Definition of Impromptu Speaking Skill Based on Convergent Points\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2.1. Proposed Operational Definition of Impromptu Speaking Skill\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrawing on the convergent points identified through conceptual mapping, ISS in tertiary EFL context may be operationally defined as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eISS is the ability to produce spoken English under conditions of limited or no preparation and real-time time pressure, in both monologic and conversational or interactional settings, in which learners must rapidly organize and develop ideas, maintain coherence, and simultaneously respond and adapt flexibly to task demands and/or the unfolding interaction in order to achieve communicative purposes in a specific context.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis definition intentionally integrates three interdependent pillars repeatedly emphasized across the evidence base. Firstly, it concerns the performance conditions, where limited preparation, and especially real-time production distinguish ISS from general speaking skills. The second relates to rapid cognitive-linguistic processing, in which learners must form, organize, and develop ideas coherently while speaking. The third highlights communication and adaptation, reflecting the need to align language choices, delivery, and interactional moves with the evolving communicative situation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, this definition recognizes that ISS does not manifest solely as impromptu monologue or short public speech. In the contemporary EFL settings, ISS frequently appears in conversation-based and interaction-oriented formats, such as interviews, discussions, meetings, or small-group exchanges, where meaning is jointly constructed with others. Under these dialogic conditions, ISS entails not only planning and delivering ideas independently, but also monitoring interlocutors, such as peers, teachers, colleagues, clients etc., taking turns appropriately, and adjusting responses in real time to sustain mutual understanding. This conversational orientation reflects the broader perspective of conceptual evolution considered in the current scoping review, in which ISS is increasingly associated with real-time conversational performance rather than purely mono-speech delivery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExcitedly, based on the above perspectives, ISS is also considered under two dimensions of meaning, in which it simultaneously functions as a sub-skill of speaking skills and a multi-dimensional competence of other lower-level sub-skills (\u003cem\u003esee\u003c/em\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4.1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCore components of speaking competence and their relevance to Impromptu Speaking Skill\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral key authors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComponents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpeaking Skills\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpromptu Speaking Skill\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrown (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), Putri et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Bachman \u0026amp; Palmer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), Canale \u0026amp; Swain (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrammar/ Grammatical Competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrown (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), Putri et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), CEFR (Council of Europe)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVocabulary/Lexical range\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrown (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), Putri et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), CEFR (Council of Europe)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePronunciation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrown (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), Putri et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), CEFR (Council of Europe), Burns \u0026amp; Joyce (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), Bygate (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFluency/ Motor-perceptive Skills\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrown (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), Putri et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComprehension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCEFR (Council of Europe), Burns \u0026amp; Joyce (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccuracy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCEFR (Council of Europe)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoherence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCEFR (Council of Europe), Burns \u0026amp; Joyce (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), Bygate (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteraction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachman \u0026amp; Palmer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), CEFR (Council of Europe)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoherence and cohesion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachman \u0026amp; Palmer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePragmatic Competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachman \u0026amp; Palmer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), Canale \u0026amp; Swain (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic Competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBurns \u0026amp; Joyce (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), Bygate (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), Canale \u0026amp; Swain (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscourse Management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBygate (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotor-perceptive Skills\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCanale \u0026amp; Swain (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSociolinguistic competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndeed, speaking competence comprise three core components in general, including \u003cb\u003elinguistic foundation components\u003c/b\u003e (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension) (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Burns \u0026amp; Joyce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Bygate, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Putri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), functional and communicative competence (discourse management, interactional competence, pragmatic appropriateness, and strategic competence) (Burns \u0026amp; Joyce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Bygate, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Canale \u0026amp; Swain, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Council of Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Palmer \u0026amp; Bachman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) and interactional-sociolinguistic competence components, which emphasises coordinating linguistic, discourse, and sociolinguistic resources to interact and co-construct meaning in real-time communication context (Burns \u0026amp; Joyce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Bygate, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Canale \u0026amp; Swain, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Hall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; May, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Meanwhile, ISS requires learners to simultaneously mobilise foundational linguistic resources, functional and communicative competence, and interactional and sociolinguistic competence with no or limited preparation and real-time performance. In other words, instead of relying solely on linguistic accuracy and fluency, ISS is closely associated with learners\u0026rsquo; ability to manage discourse, negotiate meaning, and adjust pragmatically during spontaneous interaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2.2. Implications of the operational definition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis practical definition addresses two conceptual risks identified in the Results. First, it prevents ISS from being conflated with \u0026ldquo;spontaneous speaking\u0026rdquo; in an overly general sense by foregrounding both performance conditions and adaptive communication demands as simultaneous defining features. Second, it clarifies that ISS should be understood as a continuum across discourse modes, where impromptu monologic speech and conversational/interactive ISS represent different\u0026mdash;yet conceptually connected\u0026mdash;manifestations of the same competence. This framing provides a more coherent basis for interpreting prior studies, designing future research, and aligning assessment criteria with communicative competence perspectives in tertiary EFL settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eT.T.N. conceptualized the study, designed the review methodology, conducted the literature search and screening, performed data extraction and analysis, and drafted the main manuscript. T.T.K. contributed to the development of the methodological framework, assisted with data interpretation, and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. T.T.K and V.T.L. supported the literature search, data charting, and preparation of tables and figures, and contributed to manuscript editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdnan, M. (2017). Perceptions of senior-year ELT students for flipped classroom: A materials development course. \u003cem\u003eComputer Assisted Language Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3\u0026ndash;4), 204\u0026ndash;222. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1301958\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09588221.2017.1301958\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArifin, S. (2024). Impromptu Speech Delivery among EFL Graduate Students: Challenges and Potential Strategies. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Pendidikan Progresif\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 412\u0026ndash;423. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v14.i1.202430\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.23960/jpp.v14.i1.202430\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArksey, H., \u0026amp; O'malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of social research methodology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 19\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaepler, P., Walker, J. D., \u0026amp; Driessen, M. (2014). It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e, 227\u0026ndash;236. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBergmann, J., \u0026amp; Sams, A. (2012). \u003cem\u003eFlip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day\u003c/em\u003e. International society for technology in education.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBosker, H. R., Pinget, A. F., Quen\u0026eacute;, H., Sanders, T., \u0026amp; De Jong, N. H. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Testing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 159\u0026ndash;175.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown, H. D. (2010). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurns, A., \u0026amp; Joyce, H. (1997). \u003cem\u003eFocus on Speaking\u003c/em\u003e. ERIC.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBygate, M. (1987). \u003cem\u003eSpeaking\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCabi, E. (2018). The impact of the flipped classroom model on studentsБ\u0026ge; academic achievement. \u003cem\u003eInternational Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 202\u0026ndash;221. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3482\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3482\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCanale, M., \u0026amp; Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of commuicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCouncil of Europe. (2001). C. f. C. C.-o. E. C. M. L. D. \u003cem\u003eCommon European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., \u0026amp; Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. \u003cem\u003eStudies in second language acquisition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDerwing, T. M., \u0026amp; Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. \u003cem\u003eStudies in second language acquisition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDogan, F., \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;ifci, S. (2021). The Effect of Storytelling Skill Acquisition on the Impromptu Speaking Attitudes and Anxiety Levels of 6th Grade Students. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Education and Literacy Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 189\u0026ndash;199.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFulcher, G. (2024). \u003cem\u003ePractical language testing\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Teacher Education (Online)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(3), 39\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHall, G. (2016). \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge handbook of English language teaching\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge Abingdon.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamilton, N. G. (1987). \u003cem\u003ePublic speaking for college and career\u003c/em\u003e. McGraw-Hill.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenderson, D. (1982). Impromptu speaking as a tool to improve non-native speakers' fluency in English. \u003cem\u003eJALT Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e, 75\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHengki, H., Jabu, B., \u0026amp; Salija, K. (2017). The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategy Through English Village for Teaching Speaking skill. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Language Teaching and Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 306\u0026ndash;312. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0802.12\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17507/jltr.0802.12\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHintz, E. A., \u0026amp; Huber, A. A. (2020). Verbs, visuals, and vignettes: incorporating images into the impromptu speaking exercise. \u003cem\u003eCommunication Teacher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 224\u0026ndash;230. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2019.1653488\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17404622.2019.1653488\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong, Y., Chen, L. G., Huang, J. H., Tsai, Y. Y., \u0026amp; Chang, T. Y. (2022). The impact of cooperative learning method on the oral proficiency of learners of the training program for English tourist guides. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 866863. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866863\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866863\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. \u003cem\u003eComputer Assisted Language Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 81\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.967701\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09588221.2014.967701\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eImron, A., \u0026amp; Hantari, W. C. (2019). EFL students' attitudes toward public speaking and anxiety in speaking impromptu speech. \u003cem\u003eCaLLs: Journal of Culture Arts Literature and Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 49\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIsaacs, T., \u0026amp; Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners\u0026rsquo; L2 comprehensibility ratings. \u003cem\u003eStudies in second language acquisition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 475\u0026ndash;505.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. \u003cem\u003eEducational leadership\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(4), 12\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLevac, D., Colquhoun, H., \u0026amp; O'brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. \u003cem\u003eImplementation science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLumettu, A., \u0026amp; Runtuwene, T. L. (2018). Developing the studentsБ\u0026ge; English speaking ability through impromptu speaking method. IOP Conference Series: Journal of Physics: Conference Series.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaulida, N. H., Faridah, D., \u0026amp; Tarwana, W. (2024). An analysis of students' speaking anxiety in performing impromptu presentation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of English Education Program\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25157/(jeep).v11i1.13554\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25157/(jeep).v11i1.13554\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMay, L. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Assessment Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 127\u0026ndash;145.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayer, R. E., \u0026amp; Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e, 43\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMehring, J. (2016). Present research on the flipped classroom and potential tools for the EFL classroom. \u003cem\u003eComputers in the Schools\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMessick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. \u003cem\u003eAmerican psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(9), 741.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoreno, R., \u0026amp; Mayer, R. (2007). Cognitive-affective theory of learning with media. \u003cem\u003eThe Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning\u003c/em\u003e, 161\u0026ndash;177.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNawi, R. A., Yasin, B., \u0026amp; Champion, I. C. R. (2015). Impromptu: Great impromptu speaking is never just impromptu. \u003cem\u003eStudies in English Language and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 144\u0026ndash;157. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v2i2.2697\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24815/siele.v2i2.2697\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePalmer, A. S., \u0026amp; Bachman, L. F. (1996). \u003cem\u003eLanguage testing in practice: designing and developing useful language tests\u003c/em\u003e. In. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeters, M. D., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., \u0026amp; Khalil, H. (2020). 10. Scoping reviews. \u003cem\u003eJBI manual for evidence synthesis\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutri, S. A., Amri, S., \u0026amp; Ahmad, A. (2020). THE STUDENTS\u0026rsquo;DIFFICULTIES FACTORS IN SPEAKING. \u003cem\u003eJ-shelves of indragiri (JSI)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 115\u0026ndash;129.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR\u0026eacute;v\u0026eacute;sz, A., Ekiert, M., \u0026amp; Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. \u003cem\u003eApplied linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(6), 828\u0026ndash;848.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSuzuki, S., \u0026amp; R\u0026eacute;v\u0026eacute;sz, A. (2023). Measuring speaking and writing fluency: A methodological synthesis focusing on automaticity. \u003cem\u003ePractice and automatization in second language research\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 235\u0026ndash;264). Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., \u0026amp; Weeks, L. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of internal medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e169\u003c/em\u003e(7), 467\u0026ndash;473.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYale, R. N. (2014). The impromptu gauntlet: An experiential strategy for developing lasting communication skills. \u003cem\u003eBusiness and Professional Communication Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e77\u003c/em\u003e(3), 281\u0026ndash;296.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"impromptu speaking skill, tertiary EFL, scoping review, task operation, assessment","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8985000/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8985000/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn tertiary EFL contexts, Impromptu Speaking Skill (ISS) is widely discussed, but its conceptualization, task operationalization, and assessment remain inconsistently reported. This scoping review maps how ISS is defined, operationalized through speaking-task design and performance conditions, and assessed in tertiary EFL setting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing scoping review guidance and PRISMA-ScR reporting, evidence sources were selected using the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework and charted for evidence mapping and conceptual mapping. Across 203 included sources, ISS was conceptualized along a continuum from traditional monologic impromptu speech to contemporary, interaction-oriented impromptu performance. Operationalization typically involved task parameters (i.e very limited or zero preparation, stimulus type, speaking mode, and interaction) to offer impromptu conditions. Assessment focuses on fluency, comprehension, accuracy, coherence, interaction, coherence and cohesion, pragmatic and strategic competence and discourse management. Overall, the review merges how ISS is conceptualized, operationalized, and assessed, and it proposes an operational definition and a minimum reporting set to strengthen comparability across future tertiary EFL studies.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Conceptualizing Impromptu Speaking in Tertiary EFL Context: A Scoping Review of Definitions, Operation, and Assessment Practices","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-02 03:24:23","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8985000/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"45c5ec79-a9a2-4405-949e-46e52dce2df1","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 2nd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-04T01:39:30+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-02 03:24:23","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8985000","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8985000","identity":"rs-8985000","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}