The present mixed-methods study examined the role of learner appraisals of speech tasks in second language (L2) French fluency. Forty adult learners in a Canadian immersion program participated in the study that compared four sources of data: (1) objectively measured utterance fluency in participants’ performances of three narrative tasks differing in their conceptualization and formulation demands, (2) a questionnaire on their interest, task-related anxiety, task motivation, and perceived success in task-completion, (3) an interview in which they elaborated on their perceptions of the tasks, and (4) subjective ratings of their performances by three native speakers. Findings showed the cognitive demands of tasks were associated with learners’ affective responses to tasks as well as objective and subjective measures of fluency. Furthermore, task-related anxiety and perceived success in task completion were the most important affective factors associated with fluent task performance, whereas interest and task motivation were correlated with native speakers’ fluency ratings. These results are discussed in terms of how task design and implementation can contribute to enhanced task motivation and performance in the classroom.
BoekaertsM. (2002). The on-line motivation questionnaire: A self-report instrument to assess students’ context sensitivity. In PintrichP.R.MaehrM.L. (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 12: New directions in measures and methods (pp. 77–120). New York: Elsevier.
BoskerH.PingetA.QuenéH.SandersT.De JongN. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30, 159–175.
4.
CohenJ.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of reference of languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
De JongN.H.WempeT. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 385–390.
7.
De JongN.H.SteinelM.P.FlorijnA.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ. (2012). The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121–142). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8.
DörnyeiZ. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9.
DörnyeiZ.KormosJ. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.
10.
DörnyeiZ.KormosJ. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [online], 9, 1–19. Available from https://zif.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/jg-09-2/beitrag/kormos2.htm (retrieved November2016).
11.
DörnyeiZ.RyanS. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. London: Routledge.
12.
EjzenbergR. (2000). The juggling act of oral fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. In RiggenbachH. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 287–313). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
13.
EricssonK.A.SimonH.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.
14.
EricssonK.A.SimonH.A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
FreedB. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? In RiggenbachH. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp.243–265): Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
16.
FreedB.SegalowitzN.DeweyD. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 275–301.
17.
GarciaO. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
18.
GilabertR. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240.
19.
HarackiewiczJ.M.DurikA.M.BarronK.E.LinnenbrinkE.A.TauerJ.M. (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 105–122.
20.
HidiS.RenningerK. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
21.
HidiS.RenningerK.A.KrappA. (1992). The present state of interest research. In HidiS.RenningerK.A.KrappA. (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 433–446). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
HorwitzE.K.HorwitzMB.CopeJ. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
23.
JacksonD.O.SuethanapornkulS. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367.
24.
JülkunenK. (1989). Situation and task-specific motivation in foreign language learning. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
25.
KormosJ. (2000). The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production. Language Learning, 50, 343–384.
26.
KormosJ. (2011). Speech production and the Cognition Hypothesis. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 39–59). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27.
KormosJ.DénesM. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164.
28.
KormosJ.TrebitsA. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 439–472.
29.
LambertCPhilpJ.NakamuraS. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 665–680.
30.
LantzB. (2013). The impact of continuity violation on ANOVA and alternative methods. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 12, 105–120.
31.
LennonP. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.
32.
LennonP. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In RiggenbachH. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 25–42). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
33.
LeveltW.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
MacIntyreP.D.GardnerR.C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283–305.
35.
PouporeG. (2013). Task motivation in process: A complex systems perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 91–116.
36.
PouporeG. (2015). The influence of content on adult L2 learners’ task motivation: An interest theory perspective. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, 69–90.
37.
PréfontaineY.KormosJ. (2015). The relationship between task difficulty and second language fluency in French: A mixed methods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 96–112.
38.
PréfontaineY.KormosJ. (2016). A qualitative analysis of perceptions of fluency in second language French. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 54, 151–169.
39.
PréfontaineY.KormosJ.JohnsonD. (2016). How do utterance measures predict raters’ perceptions of fluency in French as a second language?Language Testing, 33, 53–73.
40.
RenningerK.NieswandtM.HidiS. (2015). Interest in mathematics and science learning. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
41.
RiggenbachH. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423–441.
42.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 21, 27–57.
43.
RobinsonP.GilabertR. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–176.
44.
RubinH.J.RubinI. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. 2nd edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
SegalowitzN. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
46.
SpielbergerC.D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
47.
TowellR.HawkinsR.BazerguiN. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84–119.
48.
VygotskyL.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
