Language learning activities involving time-pressured repetition of similar content have been shown to facilitate improvements in fluency. However, concerns have been voiced about whether these gains might be offset by reduced levels of grammatical accuracy. This descriptive study tracked the oral proficiency of 32 Japanese university students enrolled in English as a foreign language (EFL) classes over one academic semester during which they regularly completed 3/2/1 fluency development activities. Measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) were analysed to investigate whether any developmental patterns could be identified. The results indicated that over the semester, the students made small, but significant gains in two fluency measures, the mean length of pause and the phonation/time ratio. Despite the relatively small size of the gains, expert ratings of perceived fluency suggested that these fluency improvements were detectable to the human ear. Furthermore, a significant relationship emerged between three of the four CAF measures over the semester. These results suggest that the activities moderately impacted students’ speaking fluency without negatively affecting accuracy or complexity levels; however, further longitudinal research is needed to determine which factors might influence this development, as class performance measures did not account for any of the variation detected.
ArevartS.NationP. (1991). Fluency improvement in a second language. RELC Journal, 22, 84–94.
2.
BoersF. (2014). A reappraisal of the 4/3/2 activity. RELC Journal, 45, 221–235.
3.
BoersmaP. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Available at: http://www.praat.org (accessed October 2021).
4.
BuiG.SkehanP. (2018). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency. In LiontasJ.I. (Ed.) The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Wiley.
5.
DeKeyserR. (2018). Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from skill acquisition theory. In BygateM. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 27–41). John Benjamins.
6.
de JongN.H.BoskerH.R. (2013). Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. In EklundR. (Ed.), The 6th Workshop on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech (DiSS) (pp. 17–20). Universitetsservice US-AB.
7.
de JongN.PerfettiC.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.
8.
de JongN.TillmanP. (2018). Grammatical structures and oral fluency in immediate task repetition: Trigrams across repeated performances. In BygateM. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 27–41). John Benjamins.
9.
DerwingT.M. (2017). L2 fluency development. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 246–259). Routledge.
10.
DuH. (2013). The development of Chinese fluency during study abroad in China. Modern Language Journal, 97, 131–143.
11.
ElderC.IwashitaN. (2005). Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference? In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 219–238). John Benjamins.
12.
FosterP.TonkynA.WigglesworthG. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.
13.
FreedB.F.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.
HousenA.KuikenF. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.
16.
HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 199–220). Benjamins.
17.
JarvisS. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. In OrtegaL.CummingA.EllisN.C. (Eds.), Agendas for language learning research (pp. 87–106). Wiley-Blackwell.
18.
KahngJ. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64, 809–854.
19.
KahngJ. (2018). The effect of pause location on perceived fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 569–591.
20.
KoizumiR. (2012). Relationships between text length and lexical diversity measures: Can we use short texts of less than 100 tokens?Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1, 60–69.
21.
KoponenM.RiggenbachH. (2000). Overview: Varying perspectives on fluency. In RiggenbachH. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 5–24). University of Michigan Press.
22.
KormosJ.DénesM. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164.
23.
MacWhinneyB. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edition.Erlbaum.
24.
MoraJ.C.Valls-FerrerM. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 610–641.
NittaR.NakatsuharaF. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing, 31, 147–175.
30.
O’GradyS. (2019). The impact of pre-task planning on speaking test performance for English-medium university admission. Language Testing, 36, 505–526.
SegalowitzN. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge.
33.
SegalowitzN.FreedB. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. Learning Spanish in at home or study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173–200.
34.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
35.
SkehanP.FosterP. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: a synthesis of the Ealing research. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 199–220). Benjamins.
36.
SuzukiS.KormosJ.UchiharaT. (2021). The relationship between utterance and perceived fluency: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. The Modern Language Journal, 105, 435–463.
37.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.
38.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). John Benjamins.
39.
TavakoliP.CampbellC.McCormackJ. (2016). Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 447–471.
40.
ThaiC.BoersF. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 369–393.
41.
TonkynA. (2012). Measuring and perceiving changes in oral complexity, accuracy, and fluency: examining instructed learners’ short-term gains. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 221–246). John Benjamins.
42.
TowellR. (2002). Relative degrees of fluency: A comparative case study of advanced learners of French. IRAL, 40, 117–150.
43.
TowellR.HawkinsR.BazerguiN. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84–119.
44.
TranM.N.SaitoK. (2021). Effects of the 4/3/2 activity revisited: Extending Boers (2014) and Thai & Boers (2016). Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 27 April 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1362168821994136.
45.
TurnerJ.L. (2014). Using statistics in small-scale language education research. Routledge.
46.
VerspoorM.LowieW.M.van GeertP.van DijkM.SchmidM.S. (2011). How to sections. In VerspoorM.de BotK.LowieW. (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development. John Benjamins.
