The main goal of many students of English as a foreign language (EFL) is to be fluent in the target language, i.e. to be capable to transfer their thoughts smoothly and easily in different contexts. The present study examines the effect of pedagogic intervention on enhancing speech fluency in EFL using a pretest – immediate posttest – delayed posttest design. Two groups of 32 EFL students at a University in Iran took part in the study, receiving the same amount of instruction (18 hours over 18 weeks). The Control group listened to / viewed authentic audio recordings and movies in English, discussed their contents, and completed a variety of speaking skills tasks but received no fluency training. The Experimental group spent part of the time on fluency strategy training, encouraging the memorization, repetition, and retelling of the audio and video materials. Systematic interviews were run to assess the EFL learners’ speech fluency. The findings revealed that the fluency training significantly enhanced the EFL students’ speech fluency. The findings also show that students’ second language speech fluency development can be partly predicted by the fluency in their first language. These results have pedagogical implications for practitioners in EFL settings, material designers, and EFL instructors.
AhmadianM.J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task?The Language Learning Journal, 39, 269–280.
2.
AndersonJ. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
3.
AndersonJ.R.BothellD.ByrneM.D., et al. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060.
4.
Barraja-RohanA.-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15, 479–507.
5.
BoskerH.R.PingetA.-F.QuenéH.SandersT.De JongN.H. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30, 159–175.
6.
BotezatuM.R.KrollJ.F.TrachselM.I.GuoT. (2022). Second language immersion impacts native language lexical production and comprehension. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 12, 347–376.
7.
ClarkH.H.Fox TreeJ.E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.
8.
CohenA.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Longman.
9.
CohenA.D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies, and tasks meet?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 279–291.
10.
CucchiariniC.StrikH.BovesL. (2002). Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 2862–2873.
De JongN. (2016). Fluency in second language assessment. In TsagariD.BanerjeeJ. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Assessment (pp. 203–218). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513827-015
13.
De JongN.PerfettiC.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.
14.
De JongN.SteinelM.FlorijnA.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 5–34.
15.
De JongN.H.GroenhoutR.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ.H. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 223–243.
16.
DeKeyserR. (2007). Situating the concept of practice. In DeKeyserR. (Ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press.
17.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J.ThomsonR.I. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380.
18.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1–16.
19.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J.ThomsonR.I.RossiterM.J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 533–557.
Duran-KaraozZ.TavakoliP. (2020). Predicting L2 fluency from L1 fluency behavior: The case of L1 Turkish and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 671–695.
22.
EllisR.ShintaniN. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
23.
FermanS.OlshtainE.SchechtmanE.KarniA. (2009). The acquisition of a linguistic skill by adults: Procedural and declarative memory interact in the learning of an artificial morphological rule. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 384–412.
24.
FreedB.F. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? In RiggenbachH. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 243–265). University of Michigan Press.
25.
FosterP. (2020). Oral fluency in a second language: A research agenda for the next ten years. Language Teaching, 53, 446–461.
26.
FotosS.S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323–351.
27.
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.
28.
GardnerR.C.LambertW.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Newbury House.
29.
GranenaG.LongM.H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29, 311–343.
30.
HayatiA.MohmediF. (2011). The effect of films with and without subtitles on listening comprehension of EFL learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01004.x
31.
HuenschA.Tracy-VenturaN. (2017). Understanding second language fluency behavior: The effects of individual differences in first language fluency, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency over time. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 755–785.
32.
IsaacsT.TrofimovichP. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 475–505.
33.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1986). From meta-processes to conscious access: Evidence from children’s metalinguistic and repair data. Cognition, 23, 95–147.
34.
KormosJ. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Erlbaum.
35.
KormosJ.DénesM. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164.
36.
LambertC.KormosJ.MinnD. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 167–196.
37.
LeeS. H.MuncieJ. (2012). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in a post-reading composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 295–320.
38.
LennonP. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.
39.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2018). State of the art article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
40.
MacaroE. (2001). Learning strategies in second and foreign language classrooms. Continuum.
41.
MoraJ.C.Valls-FerrerM. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 610–641.
42.
NeriA.CucchiariniC.StrikH.BovesL.2002. The pedagogy–technology interface in computer assisted pronunciation training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15, 441–467.
OxfordR.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House.
45.
PeltonenP. (2018). Exploring connections between first and second language fluency: A mixed methods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 676–692.
46.
RiazantsevaA. (2001). Second language proficiency and pausing: A study of Russian speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 497–526.
RoseH. (2020). Language variation and intelligibility [PowerPoint slides]. Canvas. Available at: https://canvas.ox.ac.uk/courses/26789 (accessed September 2023).
49.
RossiterM.J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 395–412.
50.
SaitoK. (2020). Multi- or single-word units? The role of collocation use in comprehensible and contextually appropriate second language speech. Language Learning, 70, 548–588.
51.
SaitoK. (2021). What characterizes comprehensible and native-like pronunciation among English-as-a-second-language speakers? Meta-analyses of phonological, rater, and instructional factors. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 866–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3027
52.
SaitoK.HanzawaK. (2018). The role of input in second language oral ability development in foreign language classrooms: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 22, 398–417.
53.
SaitoK.IlkanM.MagneV.TranM.N.SuzukiS. (2018). Acoustic characteristics and learner profiles of low-, mid- and high-level second language fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 593–617.
54.
SchmidtR.W. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.
55.
SegalowitzN. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge.
56.
SegalowitzN. (2012). Fluency. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 240–244). Routledge.
57.
SegalowitzN.FreedB.F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173–199.
58.
SeifooriZ.VahidiZ. (2012). The impact of fluency strategy training on Iranian EFL learners’ speech under online planning conditions. Language Awareness, 21, 101–112.
59.
SkehanP. (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. John Benjamins.
60.
SuzukiY. (2020). Optimizing fluency training for speaking skills transfer: Comparing the effects of blocked and interleaved task repetition. Language Learning, 71(2), 285–320. https://doi.org/110.1111/lang.12433
61.
TavakoliP.FosterP. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.
62.
TavakoliP.NakatsuharaF.HunterA.-M. (2020). Aspects of fluency across assessed levels of speaking proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 104, 169–191.
63.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–277). John Benjamins.
64.
TavakoliP.UchiharaT. (2020). To what extent are multiword sequences associated with oral fluency?Language Learning, 70, 506–547.
65.
ThomsonR. I. (2015) Fluency. In ReedM.LevisJ. (Eds.), The handbook of pronunciation (pp. 209–226). Wiley.
66.
TowellR.DewaeleJ.-M. (2005). The role of psycholinguistic factors in the development of fluency amongst advanced learners of French. In DewaeleJ.-M. (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 210–239). Multilingual Matters. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Marc-Dewaele/publication/329063782 (accessed September 2023).
67.
Valls-FerrerM.MoraJ.C. (2014). L2 fluency development in formal instruction and study abroad. In Pérez-VidalC. (Ed.) Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts (pp. 111–136). John Benjamins.
68.
Van OsM.De JongN.H.BoskerH.R. (2020). Fluency in dialogue: Turn-taking behavior shapes perceived fluency in native and nonnative speech. Language Learning, 70, 1183–1217.
69.
Witton-DaviesG. (2014). The study of fluency and its development in monologue and dialogue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK. Available at: https://taiwan.academia.edu/GilesWittonDavies/Thesis-Chapters (accessed September 2023).
70.
YenkimalekiM. (2017). Effect of prosody awareness training on the quality of consecutive interpreting between English and Farsi. LOT. Available at: https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/459_fulletext.pdf (accessed September 2023).
71.
YenkimalekiM. (2021). Prosody training benefits in perception vs. production skills in simultaneous interpreting: An experimental study. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–15.
72.
YenkimalekiM.Van HeuvenV.J. (2018). The effect of teaching prosody awareness on interpreting performance: An experimental study of consecutive interpreting from English into Farsi. Perspectives. Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 26(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1315824
73.
YenkimalekiM.Van HeuvenV.J. (2021). Effects of attention to segmental vs. suprasegmental features on the speech intelligibility and comprehensibility of the EFL learners targeting the perception or production-focused practice. System, 100, 1–12.
74.
YenkimalekiM.Van HeuvenV.J. (2022). Comparing the nativeness vs. intelligibility approach in prosody instruction for developing speaking skills by interpreter trainees: An experimental study. Speech Communication, 137, 92–102.
75.
YenkimalekiM.Van HeuvenV.J. (2023a). The effect of fluency strategy training on interpreter trainees’ speech fluency: Does content familiarity matter?Speech Communication, 146, 1–10.
76.
YenkimalekiM.Van HeuvenV.J. (2023b). Objective assessment of students’ interpreting performance: An experimental study. Teaching English Language, 17, 227–267.
77.
YenkimalekiM.Van HeuvenV.J. (2023c). Prosody instruction in developing listening comprehension skills by interpreter trainees: Does methodology matter?Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(5-6), 968–1004.
78.
YenkimalekiM.Van HeuvenV.J.MoradimokhesH. (2023). The effect of prosody instruction in developing listening comprehension skills by interpreter trainees: Does methodology matter?Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36, 968–1004.
79.
YenkimalekiM.Van HeuvenV.J. (accepted). The effect of fluency training on interpreter trainees’ speech fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness: An experimental study. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics.
80.
YuW.Van HeuvenV.J. (2013). Effects of immediate repetition at different stages of consecutive interpreting training. An experimental study. In AalberseS.AuerA. (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013 (pp. 201–213). John Benjamins.
81.
YuW.Van HeuvenV.J. (2017). Predicting judged fluency of consecutive interpreting from acoustic measures: Potential for automatic assessment and pedagogy. Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 19, 47–68.
82.
YuW.Van HeuvenV.J. (2021). Quantitative correlates as predictors of judged fluency in consecutive interpreting: Implications for automatic assessment and pedagogy. In ChenJ.HanC. (Eds.), Testing and assessment of interpreting (pp. 117–142). Springer Nature.
83.
ZabihiR.GhominejadS.Javad AhmadianM. (2021). Can willingness to communicate, communication in English anxiety, behavioural inhibition and behavioural action predict perceived L2 fluency?Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044071
