Theory Wiki - User contributions [en]

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2008-12-10T17:19:17Z

208.120.248.181:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! Project title
| Fostering fluency in second language learning:
Testing two types of instruction
|-
! Principal Investigator
| Dr. N. de Jong (faculty, Queens College of CUNY)
|-
! Co-PIs
| Dr. L.K. Halderman (post-doc, University of Pittsburgh)
|-
|
| Dr. C.A. Perfetti (faculty, University of Pittsburgh)
|-
! Others with > 160 hours
| Claire Siskin, Jessica Hogan, John laPlante, Mary Lou Vercelotti
|-
! Study start and end dates
| Study 1: September - November 2006
|-
|
| Study 2: January - March 2007
|-
|
| Study 3: January - March 2007
|-
|
| Study 4: January - March 2008
|-
|
| Study 5: September - November 2008
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 200
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 600 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Recordings of Studies 1, 2 and 3 available
|}

== Abstract==
Many studies have investigated the effect of exposure to language on [[fluency]]. It has been established, for instance, that [[fluency]] increases after a period of immersion or study abroad (Freed et al., 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). However, few types of instruction have been designed to increase oral [[fluency]], and even fewer have been tested.

One such type of instruction is Nation’s 4/3/2 procedure, in which learners prepare a four-minute talk and repeat it twice to different partners, first in three minutes, then in two minutes (Nation, 1989). He found that the number of hesitations decreased in the retellings, and that sentences were more complex. We may characterize such an outcome as resulting from the [[fluency pressure]] exerted by the 4/3/2 procedure. It was not investigated, however, whether the effect transferred to new speeches, which is what we showed in Study 1. Another task that may increase [[fluency]] is shadowing, in which student talk along with a recording of a short speech by a native speaker. Shadowing may also increase the feature [[strength]] of formulaic sequences, resulting in faster access to them in subsequent production tasks.

This project is transformative in the sense that it moves research on fluency away from single- or multiple-case studies, using technology to collect and analyze larger amounts of oral production data (30 to 40 students per study), and to generate multiple measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. For example, not only articulation rate is measured, but also pause length, length of fluent run, and phonation/time ratio.

Study 1 investigated what characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by the 4/3/2 procedure. Measures included the number of syllables per second (speech rate); mean length of fluent runs between pauses; phonation/time ratio; number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses; morphosyntactic accuracy; and number of embedded clauses (syntactic complexity). The posttest tested transfer to a different topic.

In Study 2 we investigated whether [[fluency]] is further enhanced by a pretraining of formulaic sequences, like ''the point is that'', ''what I’m saying is that'', and ''and so on''). Fast and effortless access to these sequences frees up [[cognitive headroom]] which can then be used to construct sentences. This results in fewer and shorter pauses, and/or greater lexical and structural complexity.

Study 3 investigated whether shadowing leads to increased use of formulaic sequences ([[chunking]]) and native-like pauses in subsequent production tasks.

In studies 4 and 5 are investigating in further detail how the characteristics of the 4/3/2 task lead to fluency development. In Study 4a, we investigated how time pressure affects the benefits of repetition in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity. We examined recordings both from the 4/3/2 task itself, and from long-term retention tests. In addition, we investigated the role of specific knowledge components in fluency development.

In Study 4b we tracked how the control and retrieval of specific vocabulary items and morphosyntactic structures develop as a result of the 4/3/2 training. Next, in Study 5, we examined whether priming these same items leads to greater accuracy and fluency during training and later. Data collection for Studies 4a, 4b and 5 took place in the Spring and Fall 2008 semesters, in the English as a Second Language (ESL) learnlab (level 4, higher intermediate). Data analysis is currently in progress.

== Glossary ==

; 4/3/2 procedure: A teaching method in which students talk about a topic for four minutes. Then they repeat their speech in three minutes, and again in two minutes.
; Shadowing: Repeating speech while it is being spoken.
; Formulaic sequence: A sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated (see Wray, 2002, p. 9), e.g., ''The point is that'', ''What I'm trying to say is that'', and ''Take something like''.
; Articulation rate: Number of syllables per second
; Phonation/time ratio: The percentage of time spent speaking as a percentage proportion to the time taken to produce the speech sample
; Morphosyntactic accuracy: In this study we will investigate subject-verb agreement, tense errors, definite/indefinite articles
; Syntactic complexity: In this study we will investigate the number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses

== Research questions ==

* Study 1:
** a. What characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by repetition of a short speech under increasing time pressure (the 4/3/2 procedure)?
** b. Does knowledge [[refinement]] take place during the 4/3/2 training, in terms of morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity?
* Study 2:
** a. Does pretraining of formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in the subsequent 4/3/2 procedure and posttest? If so, does this increase overall [[fluency]]?
** b. Does proficiency level affect [[fluency]] development during the 4/3/2 procedure?
* Study 3:
** a. What characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by shadowing a text with formulaic sequences and a pausing pattern characteristic of spontaneous speech?
** b. Does shadowing texts with formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in the posttest? If so, does this increase overall [[fluency]]?

For studies 2 and 3, questionnaire data were collected about the students' contact with the second language (English) and their first language, in terms of ''types of contact'' (e.g., listening to the radio, talking to friends, talking to strangers) and ''amount of contact'' (number of days per week, number of hours per day). We will explore whether these [[individual differences]] affect pretest performance and fluency development.

* Study 4:
** a. How do time pressure and repetition affect fluency, accuracy and complexity in the 4/3/2 task?
** b. Which knowledge components contribute to fluency development in the 4/3/2 task?
* Study 5:
** Does priming lead to an immediate and a long-term increase in fluency, accuracy and complexity?

== Background and significance ==

Many studies in the field of second language acquisition that have studied [[fluency]] have investigated the effect of study abroad, immersion and regular classroom practice on [[fluency]] (Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey, 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). Very few studies, however, have investigated specific activities that lead to [[fluency]], which can be done in classrooms. Two such activities are tested in this project.

The first activity that is tested is the 4/3/2 procedure as proposed by Nation (1989). He investigated the development of [[fluency]] during this task, but used a limited number of measures and did not test the long-term effect: he only analyzed [[fluency]] during the task itself, not during the following weeks. This project will test the long-term effect and will include more measures, such as length and location of pauses. An attempt will be made to link these measures to cognitive mechanisms.

A general effect of the 4/3/2 task on fluency development was found in Study 1. The effect was investigated in more detail in Study 4a, focusing on the two main characteristics of the task: repetition and increasing time pressure.

The contribution of knowledge components is tested in Studies 2, 4b and 5. In Study 2, students received a pretraining of a set of formulaic sequences before the first 4/3/2 fluency training session. In Study 5 students received a pretraining at the start of each 4/3/2 fluency training session. The knowledge components in this pretraining was selected based on the results of Study 4b, which investigated the role of vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth and grammatical knowledge in oral fluency.

Study 3 investigated whether shadowing affected fluency development. In addition, it was tested whether the presence of formulaic sequences in the model speeches increased use of those sequences in later speaking tasks, and whether such an increase affected [[fluency]] measures.

== Dependent variables ==
* Temporal measures of [[fluency]]:
** Articulation rate: number of syllables per second
** Pauses:
***mean length of fluent runs between pauses
***mean length of pauses
***phonation/time ratio
***number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses
** Formulaic sequences: number of appropriate formulaic sequences repeated from training
* Accuracy: morphosyntactic accuracy (target-like use of several structures, including subject-verb agreement, tense errors, and definite/indefinite articles; see Mizera, 2006: 71)
* Complexity: number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses (cf. Nation, 1989); lexical variety as measured by the Mean Segmental Type-Token Ratio (Towell, Hawkins & Bazergui, 1996)

* ''Near transfer, immediate and delayed, [[normal post-test]]'': After completing the last training session, students performed a similar task (spontaneous speech about a given topic), to test whether any gains in [[fluency]] during the training task were maintained in a new instance of the same task. This test was given one week and four weeks after the last training session, each time with a different topic. These recordings were made as part of the Recorded Speaking Activities (RSAs) from the project "[[The self-correction of speech errors (McCormick, O’Neill & Siskin)]]".
* ''Far transfer, delayed'': The delayed posttests in Study 4 will include measures of vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth and grammatical knowledge.

== Independent variables ==
(For screenshots exemplifying some of the independent variables, see Screenshots below.)
* Studies 1-3: Pretest vs. immediate posttest vs. [[long-term retention]] posttest
* Study 1: Repetition vs. No Repetition
:: In the Repetition condition students talk about one topic three times. In the No Repetition condition, students talk about three different topics.
* Study 2:
** a. Pretraining vs. no pretraining of formulaic sequences
:: In the Formulaic Sequences condition, students receive a short training of a number of formulaic sequences before they start the [[fluency]] training (4/3/2 task). In the No Formulaic Sequences condition, students do not receive this pretraining, and only do the 4/3/2 task.
:* b. Low intermediate vs. high intermediate proficiency level
:: Low intermediate students are enrolled in ELI Speaking courses at level 3, high intermediate at level 4.
* Study 3: Shadowing text with formulaic sequences vs. without formulaic sequences
:: In the Formulaic Sequences condition, students shadow texts that contain formulaic sequences. In the No Formulaic Sequences condition, students shadow the same texts, from which the formulaic sequences that are being studied have been removed.
* Study 4:
** a. Repetition vs. No Repetition
:: The 4/3/2 task will include either 1 topic (repeated) or 3 topics (not repeated)
** b. Increasing Time Pressure vs. No Increasing Time Pressure
:: The 4/3/2 task will include recordings of either 4, 3 and 2 minutes, or 3, 3, and 3 minutes
* Study 5: Pretraining vs. no pretraining of vocabulary and grammar knowledge components
:: In the Pretraining condition, students perform short tasks before the 4/3/2 training sessions to prime their vocabulary and grammar knowledge. Students in the No Pretraining condition do not receive this pretraining.

== Hypotheses ==
* Study 1: It is hypothesized that repetition of a short speech (independent variable) under increasing time pressure ([[fluency pressure]]) increases articulation rate and sentence complexity (dependent variables), and decreases the number and length of pauses (dependent variables). The reason is that repetition will--temporarily--increase the [[availability]] of vocabulary and sentence structures (leading to increase speech rate, short and fewer pauses), leaving more [[cognitive headroom]] for other processes (higher accuracy and syntactic complexity).
* Study 2: It is hypothesized that the presence of a pretraining of formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom]] for sentence structure planning, which may lead to overall more fluent performance, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, the training of formulaic sequences may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]].
* Study 2: Students at different proficiency levels may benefit in different ways from the 4/3/2 training. At lower proficiency levels, repetition may facilitate the use of particular words and grammar, leading to more instances of correct usage of vocabulary, morphosyntax and syntax. At higher proficiency levels, on the other hand, repetition may lead to a greater number of reformulations resulting in higher complexity.
* Study 3: It is hypothesized that shadowing a speech that contains formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Since effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, performance may become more fluent overall, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, shadowing may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]]. In addition, shadowing a text with target-language pausing patterns is expected to lead to a more native-like pausing pattern in subsequent spontaneous speech, mainly in terms of position (dependent variables: interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses).
* Study 4a: We hypothesize that time pressure in combination with speech repetition encourages a strategy of retrieval (shorter pauses, high lexical overlap between two subsequent recordings), while repetition without time pressure encourages computation, leading to higher accuracy and complexity with lower fluency. We expect that the strategy of computation may result in higher fluency in the longer term, because it leads to more [[refinement]] and [[strength|strengthening]] of knowledge components, thus reducing hesitations and [[automaticity|accelerating retrieval]] in future speeches (cf. the [[assistance|assistance dilemma]]).
* Study 4b: We hypothesize that students with a broader vocabulary—-since they have more words to choose from—-will be able to find an appropriate word more often and more quickly, and therefore speak more fluently (shorter and fewer pauses, fewer hesitations). This is a measure of individual differences, and of general vocabulary knowledge. Greater vocabulary depth will also increase fluency, because students have more control over vocabulary items. In addition, it is predicted that retrieval speed for words used in the fluency training will show a increase in retrieval speed compared to items that were used in the fluency training. Finally, we expect to find a positive correlation between fluency in speech production and the accuracy scores on a test of morphosyntactic knowledge.
* Study 5: We hypothesize that the pretraining will lead to more fluent speech production, as well as more accurate and more complex output. We expect that this effect will be retained on the posttest and delayed posttest. This would be an example of [[accelerated future learning]] through [[feature focusing]].

* ''Near transfer, immediate'': In all studies, a posttest is administered about a week after the last training session. This will be a similar task—a 2-minute monologue—with new content—a new topic.
* ''Near transfer, retention'': In Studies 1 and 2, another posttest is administered two to three weeks after the immediate posttest (three to four weeks after the last training session). Again, this will be a similar task—a 2-minute monologue—with new content—a new topic.
* ''[[accelerated future learning|Acceleration of future learning]]'': In Study 5, the students in the experimental condition first receive a pretraining of a number of formulaic sequences. It will be tested whether their [[fluency]], accuracy and syntactic complexity increases more during subsequent training, than of students who do not receive this pre-training.

== Findings ==
Data collection for Study 1 was completed in November, 2006. Data for Studies 2 and 3 were collected in the Spring semester of 2007.

Results of Study 1 show that, during each training session, the mean length of fluent runs increased mostly for the two conditions in which speeches were repeated (Repetition and Control/Repetition). In addition, for all three groups, pauses, on average, became shorter, and phonation/time ratio increased (i.e., students were able to fill more time with speech).

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the mean length of fluent runs for each recording in each of the sessions. It is clear that in sessions 1 and 2 the two conditions in which speeches were repeated pattern more closely together than the condition in which speeches were not repeated. The improvement in performance of the two repetition conditions seems more stable, whereas the performance of the No Repetition condition seems to be influenced by the topic of a particular speech.

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG]]

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG]]

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG]]

''Transfer to new topics''

On the immediate posttest, students in the Repetition condition are able to produce the same length of fluent runs with shorter pauses. Also, they fill relatively more time with speech (increased phonation/time ratio). It seems, therefore, that they speak more fluently than students in the No Repetition condition. However, on the delayed posttest, the No Repetition condition seems to have caught up with the Repetition condition, also having shorter pause lengths, with stable lengths of fluent runs.

Both groups reach a higher articulation rate, measured in syllables per minutes, on the delayed posttest. This may have been due to their continued Speaking classes in the English Language Institute, and may not have been related to this study.

It should be noted that the posttests were administered one and four weeks after the last session of the [[fluency]] training, and involved a new topic, which the students had not talked about during the 4/3/2 training.

{|+ Preliminary results Study 1
!   !! align="center" colspan="3" | No Repetition (n=9) !!   !! colspan="3" | Repetition (n=10) !!   !! colspan="3" | Control&Repetition (n=5)
|-
! align="center" |   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !!   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !!   !! Pre-pretest !! Pretest !! Immediate
|-
! align="center" |   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest !!   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest2 !!   !!   !!   !! Posttest
|-
! align="left" | Length of fluent runs (in syllables) *
| align="center" | 4.42 || align="center" | 4.11 || align="center" | 4.27 ||   || align="center" | 4.42 || align="center" | 4.82 || align="center" | 4.69 ||   || align="center" | 4.58 || align="center" | 4.80 || align="center" | '''5.44'''
|-
! align="left" | Pause length (in sec.) *
| align="center" | 0.92 || align="center" | 1.08 || align="center" | 0.96 ||   || align="center" | 1.18 || align="center" | '''0.96''' || align="center" | 0.99 ||   || align="center" | 0.99 || align="center" | 0.97 || align="center" | 0.84
|-
! align="left" | Phonation/time ratio *
| align="center" | 0.59 || align="center" | 0.55 || align="center" | 0.57 ||   || align="center" | 0.54 || align="center" | '''0.60''' || align="center" | 0.59 ||   || align="center" | 0.57 || align="center" | 0.59 || align="center" | 0.62
|-
! align="left" | Syllables per minute
| align="center" | 194 || align="center" | 190 || align="center" | '''204''' ||   || align="center" | 196 || align="center" | 196 || align="center" | '''204''' ||   || align="center" | 209 || align="center" | 214 || align="center" | 232
|}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Significant interaction Condition x Time

The results of Study 1 suggest that knowledge becomes more easily accessible in subsequent speeches, since phonation/time ratio increases while pauses on average become shorter and the length of fluent runs is at least stable. In the two conditions in which speeches are repeated, the length of fluent runs increases, indicating an advantage over the no-repetition condition, in which this length is stable. It seems, therefore, that repeating a speech about a particular topic enables students to produce longer fluent runs. The overall advantage of these two conditions over the no-repetition condition parallels patterns in the pre- and posttest data.

Overall, it seems that the performance of the no-repetition condition was more variable across speeches. This may be due to an effect of topic, which may be more or less familiar, complex, or linguistically difficult (e.g., eliciting present vs. past tense).

== Explanation ==
This project is part of the Refinement and Fluency cluster. The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis is that the structure of instructional activities affects learning.
This project addresses the core issues of task analysis, [[fluency]] from basics, [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] evaluation, and scheduling of practice. The 4/3/2 task has been analysed into its components. In Study 1, the effect of the component of repetition is investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar is expected to increase [[fluency]]. This will be the case in the Repetition condition, where students have the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students are encouraged to use formulaic sequences that have been taught before training. In Study 3 it is investigated whether shadowing promotes the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies take place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

== Further information ==

For a summer intern project in June and July 2007, Kara Schultz did a multiple case study of six students from Study 1. The project was a first step towards more in-depth analyses of the data of all three studies in the ESL fluency project, addressing the following research questions:
* Does the absence of the need to generate new semantic content in the two retellings during the 4/3/2 task free up headroom, resulting in changes in fluency, morphosyntactic accuracy, and complexity?
* If so, what types of changes occur, and what are the causes for these changes?
* Is there long-term retention of the changes (one week)?

In September 2007 the PSLC executive committee approved our new project plan, in which we proposed follow-up studies that investigate the effect of time pressure and the role of specific knowledge components (vocabulary, grammar) in oral fluency. These studies will be run in the Spring and Fall semesters of 2008.

'''Publications'''
De Jong, N., and Perfetti, C.A. (submitted). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.

'''Peer-reviewed presentations'''

De Jong, N., McCormick, D., O'Neill, C., and Bradin Siskin, C., ''Self-correction and fluency in ESL speaking development''. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2007 Conference in Costa Mesa, California, April 2007.

See also: [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning#Descendants|Descendants]] > [[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]]

'''Other presentations'''

De Jong, N., ''Approaches to the study of second language acquisition''. Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center (invited by Prof. Den Dikken and Prof. Otheguy), December 2007

De Jong, N., ''Oral fluency development in ESL classrooms''. Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center (invited by Prof. Klein), November 2007

De Jong, N., Presentation of the software component at the ''Multimedia Showcase'' sponsored by the Robert Henderson Media Center at the University of Pittsburgh, September 2006

== Descendants ==
[[Fluency Summer Intern Project]]

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (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.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.

==Screen shots==
[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-notes.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of the screen where students take notes before they start speaking.

[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-speech.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of the screen where students record their speeches

[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-questions.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of some of the questions after each speech has been recorded.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2008-12-08T20:09:00Z

208.120.248.181: /* Further information */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! Project title
| Fostering fluency in second language learning:
Testing two types of instruction
|-
! PI
| Dr. N. de Jong (faculty, Queens College of CUNY)
|-
! Co-PIs
| Dr. L.K. Halderman (post-doc, University of Pittsburgh)
|-
|
| Dr. C.A. Perfetti (faculty, University of Pittsburgh)
|-
! Others with > 160 hours
| Claire Siskin, Jessica Hogan, John laPlante, Mary Lou Vercelotti
|-
! Study start and end dates
| Study 1: September - November 2006
|-
|
| Study 2: January - March 2007
|-
|
| Study 3: January - March 2007
|-
|
| Study 4: January - March 2008
|-
|
| Study 5: September - November 2008
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 200
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 600 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Recordings of Studies 1, 2 and 3 available
|}

== Abstract==
Many studies have investigated the effect of exposure to language on [[fluency]]. It has been established, for instance, that [[fluency]] increases after a period of immersion or study abroad (Freed et al., 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). However, few types of instruction have been designed to increase oral [[fluency]], and even fewer have been tested.

One such type of instruction is Nation’s 4/3/2 procedure, in which learners prepare a four-minute talk and repeat it twice to different partners, first in three minutes, then in two minutes (Nation, 1989). He found that the number of hesitations decreased in the retellings, and that sentences were more complex. We may characterize such an outcome as resulting from the [[fluency pressure]] exerted by the 4/3/2 procedure. It was not investigated, however, whether the effect transferred to new speeches, which is what we showed in Study 1. Another task that may increase [[fluency]] is shadowing, in which student talk along with a recording of a short speech by a native speaker. Shadowing may also increase the feature [[strength]] of formulaic sequences, resulting in faster access to them in subsequent production tasks.

This project is transformative in the sense that it moves research on fluency away from single- or multiple-case studies, using technology to collect and analyze larger amounts of oral production data (30 to 40 students per study), and to generate multiple measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. For example, not only articulation rate is measured, but also pause length, length of fluent run, and phonation/time ratio.

Study 1 investigated what characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by the 4/3/2 procedure. Measures included the number of syllables per second (speech rate); mean length of fluent runs between pauses; phonation/time ratio; number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses; morphosyntactic accuracy; and number of embedded clauses (syntactic complexity). The posttest tested transfer to a different topic.

In Study 2 we investigated whether [[fluency]] is further enhanced by a pretraining of formulaic sequences, like ''the point is that'', ''what I’m saying is that'', and ''and so on''). Fast and effortless access to these sequences frees up [[cognitive headroom]] which can then be used to construct sentences. This results in fewer and shorter pauses, and/or greater lexical and structural complexity.

Study 3 investigated whether shadowing leads to increased use of formulaic sequences ([[chunking]]) and native-like pauses in subsequent production tasks.

In studies 4 and 5 are investigating in further detail how the characteristics of the 4/3/2 task lead to fluency development. In Study 4a, we investigated how time pressure affects the benefits of repetition in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity. We examined recordings both from the 4/3/2 task itself, and from long-term retention tests. In addition, we investigated the role of specific knowledge components in fluency development.

In Study 4b we tracked how the control and retrieval of specific vocabulary items and morphosyntactic structures develop as a result of the 4/3/2 training. Next, in Study 5, we examined whether priming these same items leads to greater accuracy and fluency during training and later. Data collection for Studies 4a, 4b and 5 took place in the Spring and Fall 2008 semesters, in the English as a Second Language (ESL) learnlab (level 4, higher intermediate). Data analysis is currently in progress.

== Glossary ==

; 4/3/2 procedure: A teaching method in which students talk about a topic for four minutes. Then they repeat their speech in three minutes, and again in two minutes.
; Shadowing: Repeating speech while it is being spoken.
; Formulaic sequence: A sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated (see Wray, 2002, p. 9), e.g., ''The point is that'', ''What I'm trying to say is that'', and ''Take something like''.
; Articulation rate: Number of syllables per second
; Phonation/time ratio: The percentage of time spent speaking as a percentage proportion to the time taken to produce the speech sample
; Morphosyntactic accuracy: In this study we will investigate subject-verb agreement, tense errors, definite/indefinite articles
; Syntactic complexity: In this study we will investigate the number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses

== Research questions ==

* Study 1:
** a. What characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by repetition of a short speech under increasing time pressure (the 4/3/2 procedure)?
** b. Does knowledge [[refinement]] take place during the 4/3/2 training, in terms of morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity?
* Study 2:
** a. Does pretraining of formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in the subsequent 4/3/2 procedure and posttest? If so, does this increase overall [[fluency]]?
** b. Does proficiency level affect [[fluency]] development during the 4/3/2 procedure?
* Study 3:
** a. What characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by shadowing a text with formulaic sequences and a pausing pattern characteristic of spontaneous speech?
** b. Does shadowing texts with formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in the posttest? If so, does this increase overall [[fluency]]?

For studies 2 and 3, questionnaire data were collected about the students' contact with the second language (English) and their first language, in terms of ''types of contact'' (e.g., listening to the radio, talking to friends, talking to strangers) and ''amount of contact'' (number of days per week, number of hours per day). We will explore whether these [[individual differences]] affect pretest performance and fluency development.

* Study 4:
** a. How do time pressure and repetition affect fluency, accuracy and complexity in the 4/3/2 task?
** b. Which knowledge components contribute to fluency development in the 4/3/2 task?
* Study 5:
** Does priming lead to an immediate and a long-term increase in fluency, accuracy and complexity?

== Background and significance ==

Many studies in the field of second language acquisition that have studied [[fluency]] have investigated the effect of study abroad, immersion and regular classroom practice on [[fluency]] (Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey, 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). Very few studies, however, have investigated specific activities that lead to [[fluency]], which can be done in classrooms. Two such activities are tested in this project.

The first activity that is tested is the 4/3/2 procedure as proposed by Nation (1989). He investigated the development of [[fluency]] during this task, but used a limited number of measures and did not test the long-term effect: he only analyzed [[fluency]] during the task itself, not during the following weeks. This project will test the long-term effect and will include more measures, such as length and location of pauses. An attempt will be made to link these measures to cognitive mechanisms.

A general effect of the 4/3/2 task on fluency development was found in Study 1. The effect was investigated in more detail in Study 4a, focusing on the two main characteristics of the task: repetition and increasing time pressure.

The contribution of knowledge components is tested in Studies 2, 4b and 5. In Study 2, students received a pretraining of a set of formulaic sequences before the first 4/3/2 fluency training session. In Study 5 students received a pretraining at the start of each 4/3/2 fluency training session. The knowledge components in this pretraining was selected based on the results of Study 4b, which investigated the role of vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth and grammatical knowledge in oral fluency.

Study 3 investigated whether shadowing affected fluency development. In addition, it was tested whether the presence of formulaic sequences in the model speeches increased use of those sequences in later speaking tasks, and whether such an increase affected [[fluency]] measures.

== Dependent variables ==
* Temporal measures of [[fluency]]:
** Articulation rate: number of syllables per second
** Pauses:
***mean length of fluent runs between pauses
***mean length of pauses
***phonation/time ratio
***number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses
** Formulaic sequences: number of appropriate formulaic sequences repeated from training
* Accuracy: morphosyntactic accuracy (target-like use of several structures, including subject-verb agreement, tense errors, and definite/indefinite articles; see Mizera, 2006: 71)
* Complexity: number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses (cf. Nation, 1989); lexical variety as measured by the Mean Segmental Type-Token Ratio (Towell, Hawkins & Bazergui, 1996)

* ''Near transfer, immediate and delayed, [[normal post-test]]'': After completing the last training session, students performed a similar task (spontaneous speech about a given topic), to test whether any gains in [[fluency]] during the training task were maintained in a new instance of the same task. This test was given one week and four weeks after the last training session, each time with a different topic. These recordings were made as part of the Recorded Speaking Activities (RSAs) from the project "[[The self-correction of speech errors (McCormick, O’Neill & Siskin)]]".
* ''Far transfer, delayed'': The delayed posttests in Study 4 will include measures of vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth and grammatical knowledge.

== Independent variables ==
(For screenshots exemplifying some of the independent variables, see Screenshots below.)
* Studies 1-3: Pretest vs. immediate posttest vs. [[long-term retention]] posttest
* Study 1: Repetition vs. No Repetition
:: In the Repetition condition students talk about one topic three times. In the No Repetition condition, students talk about three different topics.
* Study 2:
** a. Pretraining vs. no pretraining of formulaic sequences
:: In the Formulaic Sequences condition, students receive a short training of a number of formulaic sequences before they start the [[fluency]] training (4/3/2 task). In the No Formulaic Sequences condition, students do not receive this pretraining, and only do the 4/3/2 task.
:* b. Low intermediate vs. high intermediate proficiency level
:: Low intermediate students are enrolled in ELI Speaking courses at level 3, high intermediate at level 4.
* Study 3: Shadowing text with formulaic sequences vs. without formulaic sequences
:: In the Formulaic Sequences condition, students shadow texts that contain formulaic sequences. In the No Formulaic Sequences condition, students shadow the same texts, from which the formulaic sequences that are being studied have been removed.
* Study 4:
** a. Repetition vs. No Repetition
:: The 4/3/2 task will include either 1 topic (repeated) or 3 topics (not repeated)
** b. Increasing Time Pressure vs. No Increasing Time Pressure
:: The 4/3/2 task will include recordings of either 4, 3 and 2 minutes, or 3, 3, and 3 minutes
* Study 5: Pretraining vs. no pretraining of vocabulary and grammar knowledge components
:: In the Pretraining condition, students perform short tasks before the 4/3/2 training sessions to prime their vocabulary and grammar knowledge. Students in the No Pretraining condition do not receive this pretraining.

== Hypotheses ==
* Study 1: It is hypothesized that repetition of a short speech (independent variable) under increasing time pressure ([[fluency pressure]]) increases articulation rate and sentence complexity (dependent variables), and decreases the number and length of pauses (dependent variables). The reason is that repetition will--temporarily--increase the [[availability]] of vocabulary and sentence structures (leading to increase speech rate, short and fewer pauses), leaving more [[cognitive headroom]] for other processes (higher accuracy and syntactic complexity).
* Study 2: It is hypothesized that the presence of a pretraining of formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom]] for sentence structure planning, which may lead to overall more fluent performance, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, the training of formulaic sequences may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]].
* Study 2: Students at different proficiency levels may benefit in different ways from the 4/3/2 training. At lower proficiency levels, repetition may facilitate the use of particular words and grammar, leading to more instances of correct usage of vocabulary, morphosyntax and syntax. At higher proficiency levels, on the other hand, repetition may lead to a greater number of reformulations resulting in higher complexity.
* Study 3: It is hypothesized that shadowing a speech that contains formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Since effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, performance may become more fluent overall, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, shadowing may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]]. In addition, shadowing a text with target-language pausing patterns is expected to lead to a more native-like pausing pattern in subsequent spontaneous speech, mainly in terms of position (dependent variables: interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses).
* Study 4a: We hypothesize that time pressure in combination with speech repetition encourages a strategy of retrieval (shorter pauses, high lexical overlap between two subsequent recordings), while repetition without time pressure encourages computation, leading to higher accuracy and complexity with lower fluency. We expect that the strategy of computation may result in higher fluency in the longer term, because it leads to more [[refinement]] and [[strength|strengthening]] of knowledge components, thus reducing hesitations and [[automaticity|accelerating retrieval]] in future speeches (cf. the [[assistance|assistance dilemma]]).
* Study 4b: We hypothesize that students with a broader vocabulary—-since they have more words to choose from—-will be able to find an appropriate word more often and more quickly, and therefore speak more fluently (shorter and fewer pauses, fewer hesitations). This is a measure of individual differences, and of general vocabulary knowledge. Greater vocabulary depth will also increase fluency, because students have more control over vocabulary items. In addition, it is predicted that retrieval speed for words used in the fluency training will show a increase in retrieval speed compared to items that were used in the fluency training. Finally, we expect to find a positive correlation between fluency in speech production and the accuracy scores on a test of morphosyntactic knowledge.
* Study 5: We hypothesize that the pretraining will lead to more fluent speech production, as well as more accurate and more complex output. We expect that this effect will be retained on the posttest and delayed posttest. This would be an example of [[accelerated future learning]] through [[feature focusing]].

* ''Near transfer, immediate'': In all studies, a posttest is administered about a week after the last training session. This will be a similar task—a 2-minute monologue—with new content—a new topic.
* ''Near transfer, retention'': In Studies 1 and 2, another posttest is administered two to three weeks after the immediate posttest (three to four weeks after the last training session). Again, this will be a similar task—a 2-minute monologue—with new content—a new topic.
* ''[[accelerated future learning|Acceleration of future learning]]'': In Study 5, the students in the experimental condition first receive a pretraining of a number of formulaic sequences. It will be tested whether their [[fluency]], accuracy and syntactic complexity increases more during subsequent training, than of students who do not receive this pre-training.

== Findings ==
Data collection for Study 1 was completed in November, 2006. Data for Studies 2 and 3 were collected in the Spring semester of 2007.

Results of Study 1 show that, during each training session, the mean length of fluent runs increased mostly for the two conditions in which speeches were repeated (Repetition and Control/Repetition). In addition, for all three groups, pauses, on average, became shorter, and phonation/time ratio increased (i.e., students were able to fill more time with speech).

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the mean length of fluent runs for each recording in each of the sessions. It is clear that in sessions 1 and 2 the two conditions in which speeches were repeated pattern more closely together than the condition in which speeches were not repeated. The improvement in performance of the two repetition conditions seems more stable, whereas the performance of the No Repetition condition seems to be influenced by the topic of a particular speech.

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG]]

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG]]

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG]]

''Transfer to new topics''

On the immediate posttest, students in the Repetition condition are able to produce the same length of fluent runs with shorter pauses. Also, they fill relatively more time with speech (increased phonation/time ratio). It seems, therefore, that they speak more fluently than students in the No Repetition condition. However, on the delayed posttest, the No Repetition condition seems to have caught up with the Repetition condition, also having shorter pause lengths, with stable lengths of fluent runs.

Both groups reach a higher articulation rate, measured in syllables per minutes, on the delayed posttest. This may have been due to their continued Speaking classes in the English Language Institute, and may not have been related to this study.

It should be noted that the posttests were administered one and four weeks after the last session of the [[fluency]] training, and involved a new topic, which the students had not talked about during the 4/3/2 training.

{|+ Preliminary results Study 1
!   !! align="center" colspan="3" | No Repetition (n=9) !!   !! colspan="3" | Repetition (n=10) !!   !! colspan="3" | Control&Repetition (n=5)
|-
! align="center" |   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !!   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !!   !! Pre-pretest !! Pretest !! Immediate
|-
! align="center" |   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest !!   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest2 !!   !!   !!   !! Posttest
|-
! align="left" | Length of fluent runs (in syllables) *
| align="center" | 4.42 || align="center" | 4.11 || align="center" | 4.27 ||   || align="center" | 4.42 || align="center" | 4.82 || align="center" | 4.69 ||   || align="center" | 4.58 || align="center" | 4.80 || align="center" | '''5.44'''
|-
! align="left" | Pause length (in sec.) *
| align="center" | 0.92 || align="center" | 1.08 || align="center" | 0.96 ||   || align="center" | 1.18 || align="center" | '''0.96''' || align="center" | 0.99 ||   || align="center" | 0.99 || align="center" | 0.97 || align="center" | 0.84
|-
! align="left" | Phonation/time ratio *
| align="center" | 0.59 || align="center" | 0.55 || align="center" | 0.57 ||   || align="center" | 0.54 || align="center" | '''0.60''' || align="center" | 0.59 ||   || align="center" | 0.57 || align="center" | 0.59 || align="center" | 0.62
|-
! align="left" | Syllables per minute
| align="center" | 194 || align="center" | 190 || align="center" | '''204''' ||   || align="center" | 196 || align="center" | 196 || align="center" | '''204''' ||   || align="center" | 209 || align="center" | 214 || align="center" | 232
|}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Significant interaction Condition x Time

The results of Study 1 suggest that knowledge becomes more easily accessible in subsequent speeches, since phonation/time ratio increases while pauses on average become shorter and the length of fluent runs is at least stable. In the two conditions in which speeches are repeated, the length of fluent runs increases, indicating an advantage over the no-repetition condition, in which this length is stable. It seems, therefore, that repeating a speech about a particular topic enables students to produce longer fluent runs. The overall advantage of these two conditions over the no-repetition condition parallels patterns in the pre- and posttest data.

Overall, it seems that the performance of the no-repetition condition was more variable across speeches. This may be due to an effect of topic, which may be more or less familiar, complex, or linguistically difficult (e.g., eliciting present vs. past tense).

== Explanation ==
This project is part of the Refinement and Fluency cluster. The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis is that the structure of instructional activities affects learning.
This project addresses the core issues of task analysis, [[fluency]] from basics, [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] evaluation, and scheduling of practice. The 4/3/2 task has been analysed into its components. In Study 1, the effect of the component of repetition is investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar is expected to increase [[fluency]]. This will be the case in the Repetition condition, where students have the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students are encouraged to use formulaic sequences that have been taught before training. In Study 3 it is investigated whether shadowing promotes the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies take place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

== Further information ==

For a summer intern project in June and July 2007, Kara Schultz did a multiple case study of six students from Study 1. The project was a first step towards more in-depth analyses of the data of all three studies in the ESL fluency project, addressing the following research questions:
* Does the absence of the need to generate new semantic content in the two retellings during the 4/3/2 task free up headroom, resulting in changes in fluency, morphosyntactic accuracy, and complexity?
* If so, what types of changes occur, and what are the causes for these changes?
* Is there long-term retention of the changes (one week)?

In September 2007 the PSLC executive committee approved our new project plan, in which we proposed follow-up studies that investigate the effect of time pressure and the role of specific knowledge components (vocabulary, grammar) in oral fluency. These studies will be run in the Spring and Fall semesters of 2008.

'''Publications'''
De Jong, N., and Perfetti, C.A. (submitted). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.

'''Peer-reviewed presentations'''

De Jong, N., McCormick, D., O'Neill, C., and Bradin Siskin, C., ''Self-correction and fluency in ESL speaking development''. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2007 Conference in Costa Mesa, California, April 2007.

See also: [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning#Descendants|Descendants]] > [[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]]

'''Other presentations'''

De Jong, N., ''Approaches to the study of second language acquisition''. Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center (invited by Prof. Den Dikken and Prof. Otheguy), December 2007

De Jong, N., ''Oral fluency development in ESL classrooms''. Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center (invited by Prof. Klein), November 2007

De Jong, N., Presentation of the software component at the ''Multimedia Showcase'' sponsored by the Robert Henderson Media Center at the University of Pittsburgh, September 2006

== Descendants ==
[[Fluency Summer Intern Project]]

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (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.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.

==Screen shots==
[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-notes.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of the screen where students take notes before they start speaking.

[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-speech.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of the screen where students record their speeches

[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-questions.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of some of the questions after each speech has been recorded.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008

2008-12-08T20:03:13Z

208.120.248.181: /* Further information */

== Abstract ==

The following reports the findings from the summer intern project of Megan Ross (Northwestern University) in June and July 2008. It concerns an analysis of the data gathered in Spring 2008 for Study 2 of the project [[Fostering fluency in second language learning]] (De Jong, Halderman, and Perfetti).

Data was analyzed of 30 students of English as a second language, who had received a 50-minute training on formulaic sequences, followed by three sessions of [[Fostering fluency in second language learning|the 4/3/2 procedure]], which is designed to promote [[fluency]].

Results showed that students who were trained to use formulaic sequences used more of them in subsequent speeches -- both trained and untrained sequences. However, the formal accuracy of trained formulaic sequence was lower than that of untrained sequences. This indicates that the students may not have stored the trained formulaic sequences as chunks, and that they were more aware of the function of formulaic sequences to signal the structure of a speech.

== Background and significance ==

Formulaic sequences are prefabricated structures of a language which are relatively fixed that help people speak with fluency (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992). Speakers use formulaic sequences for several reasons. First of all, they allow for more efficient retrieval of other information (chunking). In addition, both the speaker and listener are able to focus on the “bigger picture” of the conversation, rather than on individual words. Finally, in L2 acquisition, using formulaic sequences helps the student sound more fluent, and provides the student with more time to think about what else they want to say (resource allocation).

Nattinger & DeCarrico distinguish between four types of formulaic sequences (or lexical phrases):

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|+Four types of formulaic sequences (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992)
|-
! !!Grammatical level!!Canonical/Non-canonical!!Variable/Fixed!!Continuous/Dis-continuous
|-
!align="left"|Polywords
(e.g., ''For the most part...'')
|word level||both||fixed||continuous
|-
!align="left"|Institutionalized expressions
(e.g. ''Have a nice day'')
|sentence level||canonical||fixed||continuous
|-
!align="left"|Phrasal constraints
(e.g., ''A [long time] ago…'')
|word level||both||somewhat variable||mostly continuous
|-
!align="left"|Sentence builders
(e.g., ''Not only X, but Y'')
|sentence level||canonical||highly variable||often discontinuous
|}

== Research questions ==

Two competing theories about the acquisition and use of formulaic sequences were considered. Two theories of how formulaic sequences are learned (correctly and incorrectly):
* Language is proceduralized and automatized in grammatically correct chunks. If the structure of the sequence is incorrect, then the formulaic sequence has not been proceduralized (Towell et al, 1996).
* Language is learned holistically for L1, but (older) L2 learners process formulaic sequences at the word level. Consequently, incorrect formulaic sequence use is a result of constructing the sequence from parsed speech (Wray, 2002).

In this study, we investigated whether ESL Students who are trained to use formulaic sequences will use them more often and with greater accuracy, as compared to ESL students who do not receive the training.

== Method ==

The participants in this study were 30 ESL students enrolled in the English Language Institute of the University of Pittsburgh, at levels 3 and 4 (low and high intermediate). At the beginning of the semester 17 students received a 50-minute pretraining in which they learned the form and use of 10 formulaic sequences through listening, fill-in-the-blank exercises, and partner-work (Formulaic Sequences condition). The other 13 students did not receive this training (No Formulaic Sequences condition).

In the weeks following this training, during the first half of the Spring 2007 semester, the students performed the 4/3/2 procedure (see [[Fostering fluency in second language learning]]) three times. They also performed three [[The self-correction of speech errors (McCormick, O’Neill & Siskin)|Recorded Speaking Activities]] at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester, which served as pretest, posttest and delayed posttest.

== Independent variables ==

* a. Pretraining vs. no pretraining of formulaic sequences
:: In the Formulaic Sequences condition, students receive a short training of a number of formulaic sequences before they start the [[fluency]] training (4/3/2 task). In the No Formulaic Sequences condition, students do not receive this pretraining, and only do the 4/3/2 task.
:* b. Low intermediate vs. high intermediate proficiency level
:: Low intermediate students are enrolled in ELI Speaking courses at level 3, high intermediate at level 4.

== Dependent variables ==
* Temporal measures of [[fluency]]:
** Articulation rate: number of syllables per second
** Pauses:
***mean length of fluent runs between pauses
***mean length of pauses
***phonation/time ratio
* Formulaic sequences:
**number of correct and incorrect formulaic sequences repeated from training (trained sequences)
**number of other correct and incorrect formulaic sequences (untrained sequences)

* ''Near transfer, immediate and delayed, [[normal post-test]]'': After completing the last training session, students performed a similar task (spontaneous speech about a given topic), to test whether any gains in [[fluency]] during the training task were maintained in a new instance of the same task. This test was given one week and four weeks after the last training session, each time with a different topic. These recordings were made as part of the Recorded Speaking Activities (RSAs) from the project "[[The self-correction of speech errors (McCormick, O’Neill & Siskin)]]".

== Hypotheses ==

* Students who were trained to use formulaic sequences will use more formulaic sequences in subsequent speeches than students who did not receive this training.
* Students who use formulaic sequences will speak with higher fluency (higher phonation/time ratio and longer mean length of fluent run) than students who do not.

== Findings ==

General Linear Model analyses revealed the following significant effects.

'''Trained correct'''
* Group: F(1, 28) = 11.87, MSE = 1.02, p<.05
* Activity: F(2, 56) = 2.74, MSE = .23, p=.07
* Group*Activity: F(2, 16) = 3.61, MSE = .41, p<.05

'''Trained incorrect'''
* Group: F(1, 28) = 9.16, MSE = .13, p<.05

'''Untrained correct'''
* Group: F(1, 28) = 4.96, MSE = 1.44, p<.05

'''Untrained incorrect'''
* Group: F(1, 28) = .71, MSE = .02, p<.05

[[Image:Fluency SI08 TrainedCorrect.gif|350px|Trained Correct]] [[Image:Fluency SI08 TrainedIncorrect.gif|350px|Trained Incorrect]]

[[Image:Fluency SI08 UntrainedCorrect.gif|350px|Untrained Correct]] [[Image:Fluency SI08 UntrainedIncorrect.gif|350px|Untrained Incorrect]]

'''In summary:'''
* Students in the trained condition used more formulaic sequences than students who were untrained.

* Students in the trained condition attempted more sequences (incorrect use) than students who were not trained.

* Untrained sequences were not taught in the training, but when students used the untrained sequences, they were very accurate.

* Activity 3 may have yielded higher sequence use than Activities 2 and 4 because of the topic.

* Overall, there was significantly more correct use in both the trained and untrained conditions.

* Data from the [[The self-correction of speech errors (McCormick, O’Neill & Siskin)|Recorded Speaking Activities]] showed no trends connecting formulaic sequence use to measures of fluency.

*Other observations
** Arabic speakers rarely (if ever) used any formulaic sequences.
** Korean and East Asian speakers used more untrained sequences than trained sequences, in both conditions.

== Explanation ==

Because formulaic sequences are not taught extensively in the regular ELI classes, the sequences can be assumed to have been mostly unfamiliar to the students in the No Formulaic Sequences condition. Most students who received the pretraining attempted to use at least some of the sequences in some of their speeches. However, students seemed to have difficulty remembering the exact form of the sequences, resulting in ungrammatical phrases like ''It seems me that'' and ''To give you example''. This indicates that the students had not stored the sequences as chunks, but rather re-generated them every time, using their current interlanguage grammar. This supports Wray’s claim that adult L2 learners process formulaic sequences at the word level.

If the sequences indeed were re-generated instead of retrieved as chunks, this explains why no beneficial effect on fluency measures was found: cognitive headroom was not created, and instead may have decreased as students were struggling to remember the correct form of the sequences.

It was found that the students who had received the pretraining used more untrained sequences as well. It appears that the training made these students more aware of the functions of the sequences, such as exemplifying (''To give an example, ...'') and clarifying (''What I'm trying to say is that ...''). Instead of using the ‘difficult’ newly learned sequences, students resorted to better-known, shorter sequences, such as ''For example ...'' and ''In my opinion ..''.

Increased use of formulaic sequences in Activity 3 as compared to Activities 2 and 4 may be related to differences in attention allocation. In Activity 2 (the first 4/3/2 session after the training), students were still somewhat unfamiliar with the 4/3/2 procedure and paid little attention to using the sequences. In Activity 3, students knew what was expected and had more cognitive resources available to focus on using the sequences. In Activity 4, roughly 2.5 weeks after the pretraining, memory of the sequences may have faded, and students’ attention may have been directed elsewhere, e.g., to preparing for the upcoming Recorded Speaking Activity (which is graded on accuracy, among others).

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Megan Ross from Northwestern University (summer intern in June-July 2008), Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from Queens College of CUNY.

The results of this project will be presented at the conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL) in Denver, CO (March, 2009).

Using syntactic priming to increase robust learning

2008-12-08T19:59:31Z

208.120.248.181: /* Further information */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! Project title
| Training oral production in learning second language grammar
|-
! PI
| De Jong (post-doc, now faculty)
|-
! Co-PIs
| Perfetti, DeKeyser (faculty)
|-
! Others with > 160 hours
| John laPlante
|-
! Study start date
| March 2007
|-
! Study end date
| September 2007
|-
! Learnlab
| French
|-
! Number of participants
| 30
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 75
|-
! Datashop?
| Expected date April 2007
|}

== Abstract ==

The [[transfer]] from comprehension skills to production skills in second language learners seems to be, in many cases, neither spontaneous nor complete. Although there has been a considerable amount of discussion about the link between receptive and productive language skills in both the psycholinguistic and the applied linguistics literature, the question of how to bridge the gap between comprehension and production skills has not received much attention yet outside the narrow area of speech. This project investigates whether the proposed learning task can support [[transfer]] of comprehension skills to production skills with respect to grammar, thus supporting [[fluency]] in production. In this task, each instance of production is immediately preceded by an instance of comprehension. Because comprehension activates the required structural representations (e.g., knowledge of syntactic frames or verb forms; syntactic priming), the activated representations become more [[accessibility|accessible]] for subsequent production, which will facilitate processing and increase [[fluency]]. Thus, new procedures for production may be made ([[refinement]]), or existing procedures may be [[strength|strengthened]].

== Glossary ==

; Comprehension skills: Skills in listening and reading
; Production skills: Skills in speaking and writing
; Syntactic priming: The phenomenon that speakers tend to use syntactic structures they have recently processed; also known as structural priming

== Research questions ==

* '''Research question 1''': Can errors in oral production be prevented by activating (i.e., increasing the [[availability]] of) the correct structure by aural input?
* '''Research question 2''': Does oral syntactic priming lead to learning, i.e. a lasting increase in the availability of grammar knowledge for production, resulting in increased accuracy?
* '''Research question 3''': Does oral syntactic priming lead to learning, i.e. a lasting increase in the availability of grammar knowledge for production, resulting in increased [[fluency]]?
* '''Research question 4''': Does the increase in production skills [[transfer]] to semi-spontaneous speech?

== Background and significance ==

The [[transfer]] from comprehension skills to production skills in second language (L2) learners seems to be, in many cases, neither spontaneous nor complete. Although there has been a considerable amount of discussion about the link between receptive and productive language skills in both the psycholinguistic and the applied linguistics literature, the question of how to bridge the gap between comprehension and production skills has not received much attention yet outside the narrow area of speech. This project investigates whether the proposed learning task can support [[transfer]] of comprehension skills to production skills with respect to grammar, thus supporting [[fluency]] in production.

Syntactic priming refers to the phenomenon that speakers tend to use syntactic structures they have recently processed. An explanation in terms of Levelt et al.’s (1999) model of language processing is that syntactic information can be pre-activated, for instance by listening to a sentence containing that syntactic structure. In subsequent production, it will be easier for the grammatical encoder to produce syntactically correct output because it can benefit from activation of the relevant syntactic knowledge components. McDonough (2006) argued that syntactic priming can help L2 learning, when learners have a choice between a simple and an advanced form, or between a non-targetlike form and a more appropriate form. When syntactic priming occurs, the structure is temporarily more [[availability|available]], and the learner is more likely to produce the more advanced or appropriate form in subsequent utterances. In our view, syntactic priming enables students to process advanced and appropriate forms more often than in traditional activities. This way knowledge components and procedures in the grammatical encoder are [[strength|strengthened]] more effectively.

== Dependent variables ==

'''Comprehension'''
* Acuracy (2-choice forced-choice)
* Reaction time

'''Production'''
* Accuracy (correct choice of word order; correct choice of mood)
* Response duration
* Number of pauses
* Length of pauses

'''Semi-spontaneous production'''
* Accuracy (correct choice of mood)
* Number of pauses
* Length of pauses
* Phonation/time ratio
* Location of pauses (before verb – elsewhere)

* ''Near transfer, immediate'': The immediate posttest is the same task as the training tasks; however, items are presented in separate blocks of comprehension items and production items. The content of the items is different, that is, the vocabulary if different from the training tasks.
* ''Near transfer, retention'': The delayed posttest is the same as the immediate posttest. It will be administered three to five days after the training and immediate posttests.
* ''Far transfer, retention'': The delayed posttest is followed by a semi-spontaneous speech in which the target structure is elicited. This test is included only in the study on the conditional mood.

== Independent variables ==

* ''Training'': presence/absence of syntactic priming ([[availability]])
* ''Time'': immediate vs. delayed posttest ([[long-term retention]])
* ''Task'': controlled sentence-level production vs. extended semi-spontaneous speech (conditional only; [[transfer]])

== Hypotheses ==

It is expected that training in which comprehension of a sentence is immediately followed by production of a sentence with the same structure will increase accuracy in the production part of the training, as well as in later comprehension and production tasks [accuracy]. Processing speed will also increase [reaction time; response duration]. A training program in which comprehension and production are called for separately (in distinct tasks) will also increase accuracy and processing speed in comprehension and production, but to a lesser extent, especially in production.

It is expected that the proposed training—in which production of a sentence immediately follows comprehension of a sentence with the same structure—will increase production accuracy during training, as well as later. [[Fluency]] would also increase: there would be fewer and shorter pauses, and response duration would be shorter (i.e., speech rate will be higher). A more traditional training program in which comprehension and production are practiced in blocked tasks will also increase accuracy and processing speed in production, but to a lesser extent.

The effect of training will be measured directly after training and after one week ([[long-term retention]]. If the syntactic priming training indeed increases the [[availability]] of syntactic knowledge, it is expected that accuracy and [[fluency]] on the immediate and delayed production post-tests will be higher in the syntactic priming condition. This is also hypothesized for the semi-spontaneous speaking task. The location of pauses may indicate that students in the syntactic priming condition pause less before the grammatical structure to be learned (order of pronouns, or choice of mood) than in the non-syntactic priming condition.

It is hypothesized that students in the syntactic priming condition will achieve higher accuracy and [[fluency]] in the semi-spontaneous production posttest than the students in the non-syntactic priming condition.

== Findings ==

Data was collected from March through September 2007. Data transcription has not started yet.

Specifically for this study, software has been developed that can record audio over the internet, so that, in the future, similar studies can be part of an on-line course. Although this delayed the project, we have gained valuable experience in programming such software and in using a Flash Media Server to capture audio. This tool will be made available to other projects at PSLC.

== Explanation ==

This study is part of the Refinement and Fluency cluster. The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, refinement, and fluent control of critical knowledge components. The overall hypothesis is that instruction that systematically reflects the complex [[features]] of targeted knowledge in relation to the learner’s existing knowledge leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not.

This study addressed the core issues of fluency from basics, scheduling of practice, and transfer. Students’ earlier knowledge of one specific grammatical construction is used to promote its transfer from comprehension to production skills by syntactic priming. This ‘syntactic priming’ can take place from comprehension to production because there is at least a partial overlap between the knowledge components and/or procedures involved in the skills of comprehension and production. Such priming through comprehension may enable students to use certain grammatical structure in production which they could not use correctly otherwise, or just not as often. Knowledge components and procedures related to the grammatical structure will be strengthened by syntactic priming, so that they are more readily available. This in turn will lead to higher accuracy and fluency.

This particular way of scheduling comprehension and production tasks is expected to lead to higher gains in accuracy compared to scheduling that does not involve syntactic priming. Fluency is expected to increase because a basic skill—one particular grammar point—has been practiced. Transfer is expected to take place from comprehension to production skills.

== Annotated bibliography ==

-

== Descendents ==

-

== Further information ==

After a delay due to the unavailability of qualified transcribers, transcription of the data of both studies (pronouns, conditional) is currently underway (December 2008). Expected date of completion: March 2009.

== Screen shots ==

Screen shot 1: Pronoun order listening task.
[[Image:French-synt-priming_pron-listen.JPG|600px]]

Screen shot 2: Pronoun order speaking task.
[[Image:French-synt-priming_pron-speak.JPG|600px]]

Screen shot 3: Conditional verbs listening task.
[[Image:French-synt-priming cond-listen.jpg|600px]]

Screen shot 4: Conditional verbs speaking task.
[[Image:French-synt-priming_cond-speak.JPG|600px]]

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2008-12-04T15:42:35Z

208.120.248.181: /* Background and significance */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! Project title
| Fostering fluency in second language learning:
Testing two types of instruction
|-
! PI
| Dr. N. de Jong (faculty, Queens College of CUNY)
|-
! Co-PIs
| Dr. L.K. Halderman (post-doc, University of Pittsburgh)
|-
|
| Dr. C.A. Perfetti (faculty, University of Pittsburgh)
|-
! Others with > 160 hours
| Claire Siskin, Jessica Hogan, John laPlante, Mary Lou Vercelotti
|-
! Study start and end dates
| Study 1: September - November 2006
|-
|
| Study 2: January - March 2007
|-
|
| Study 3: January - March 2007
|-
|
| Study 4: January - March 2008
|-
|
| Study 5: September - November 2008
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 200
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 600 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Recordings of Studies 1, 2 and 3 available
|}

== Abstract==
Many studies have investigated the effect of exposure to language on [[fluency]]. It has been established, for instance, that [[fluency]] increases after a period of immersion or study abroad (Freed et al., 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). However, few types of instruction have been designed to increase oral [[fluency]], and even fewer have been tested.

One such type of instruction is Nation’s 4/3/2 procedure, in which learners prepare a four-minute talk and repeat it twice to different partners, first in three minutes, then in two minutes (Nation, 1989). He found that the number of hesitations decreased in the retellings, and that sentences were more complex. We may characterize such an outcome as resulting from the [[fluency pressure]] exerted by the 4/3/2 procedure. It was not investigated, however, whether the effect transferred to new speeches, which is what we showed in Study 1. Another task that may increase [[fluency]] is shadowing, in which student talk along with a recording of a short speech by a native speaker. Shadowing may also increase the feature [[strength]] of formulaic sequences, resulting in faster access to them in subsequent production tasks.

This project is transformative in the sense that it moves research on fluency away from single- or multiple-case studies, using technology to collect and analyze larger amounts of oral production data (30 to 40 students per study), and to generate multiple measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. For example, not only articulation rate is measured, but also pause length, length of fluent run, and phonation/time ratio.

Study 1 investigated what characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by the 4/3/2 procedure. Measures included the number of syllables per second (speech rate); mean length of fluent runs between pauses; phonation/time ratio; number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses; morphosyntactic accuracy; and number of embedded clauses (syntactic complexity). The posttest tested transfer to a different topic.

In Study 2 we investigated whether [[fluency]] is further enhanced by a pretraining of formulaic sequences, like ''the point is that'', ''what I’m saying is that'', and ''and so on''). Fast and effortless access to these sequences frees up [[cognitive headroom]] which can then be used to construct sentences. This results in fewer and shorter pauses, and/or greater lexical and structural complexity.

Study 3 investigated whether shadowing leads to increased use of formulaic sequences ([[chunking]]) and native-like pauses in subsequent production tasks.

In studies 4 and 5 are investigating in further detail how the characteristics of the 4/3/2 task lead to fluency development. In Study 4a, we investigated how time pressure affects the benefits of repetition in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity. We examined recordings both from the 4/3/2 task itself, and from long-term retention tests. In addition, we investigated the role of specific knowledge components in fluency development.

In Study 4b we tracked how the control and retrieval of specific vocabulary items and morphosyntactic structures develop as a result of the 4/3/2 training. Next, in Study 5, we examined whether priming these same items leads to greater accuracy and fluency during training and later. Data collection for Studies 4a, 4b and 5 took place in the Spring and Fall 2008 semesters, in the English as a Second Language (ESL) learnlab (level 4, higher intermediate). Data analysis is currently in progress.

== Glossary ==

; 4/3/2 procedure: A teaching method in which students talk about a topic for four minutes. Then they repeat their speech in three minutes, and again in two minutes.
; Shadowing: Repeating speech while it is being spoken.
; Formulaic sequence: A sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated (see Wray, 2002, p. 9), e.g., ''The point is that'', ''What I'm trying to say is that'', and ''Take something like''.
; Articulation rate: Number of syllables per second
; Phonation/time ratio: The percentage of time spent speaking as a percentage proportion to the time taken to produce the speech sample
; Morphosyntactic accuracy: In this study we will investigate subject-verb agreement, tense errors, definite/indefinite articles
; Syntactic complexity: In this study we will investigate the number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses

== Research questions ==

* Study 1:
** a. What characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by repetition of a short speech under increasing time pressure (the 4/3/2 procedure)?
** b. Does knowledge [[refinement]] take place during the 4/3/2 training, in terms of morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity?
* Study 2:
** a. Does pretraining of formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in the subsequent 4/3/2 procedure and posttest? If so, does this increase overall [[fluency]]?
** b. Does proficiency level affect [[fluency]] development during the 4/3/2 procedure?
* Study 3:
** a. What characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by shadowing a text with formulaic sequences and a pausing pattern characteristic of spontaneous speech?
** b. Does shadowing texts with formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in the posttest? If so, does this increase overall [[fluency]]?

For studies 2 and 3, questionnaire data were collected about the students' contact with the second language (English) and their first language, in terms of ''types of contact'' (e.g., listening to the radio, talking to friends, talking to strangers) and ''amount of contact'' (number of days per week, number of hours per day). We will explore whether these [[individual differences]] affect pretest performance and fluency development.

* Study 4:
** a. How do time pressure and repetition affect fluency, accuracy and complexity in the 4/3/2 task?
** b. Which knowledge components contribute to fluency development in the 4/3/2 task?
* Study 5:
** Does priming lead to an immediate and a long-term increase in fluency, accuracy and complexity?

== Background and significance ==

Many studies in the field of second language acquisition that have studied [[fluency]] have investigated the effect of study abroad, immersion and regular classroom practice on [[fluency]] (Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey, 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). Very few studies, however, have investigated specific activities that lead to [[fluency]], which can be done in classrooms. Two such activities are tested in this project.

The first activity that is tested is the 4/3/2 procedure as proposed by Nation (1989). He investigated the development of [[fluency]] during this task, but used a limited number of measures and did not test the long-term effect: he only analyzed [[fluency]] during the task itself, not during the following weeks. This project will test the long-term effect and will include more measures, such as length and location of pauses. An attempt will be made to link these measures to cognitive mechanisms.

A general effect of the 4/3/2 task on fluency development was found in Study 1. The effect was investigated in more detail in Study 4a, focusing on the two main characteristics of the task: repetition and increasing time pressure.

The contribution of knowledge components is tested in Studies 2, 4b and 5. In Study 2, students received a pretraining of a set of formulaic sequences before the first 4/3/2 fluency training session. In Study 5 students received a pretraining at the start of each 4/3/2 fluency training session. The knowledge components in this pretraining was selected based on the results of Study 4b, which investigated the role of vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth and grammatical knowledge in oral fluency.

Study 3 investigated whether shadowing affected fluency development. In addition, it was tested whether the presence of formulaic sequences in the model speeches increased use of those sequences in later speaking tasks, and whether such an increase affected [[fluency]] measures.

== Dependent variables ==
* Temporal measures of [[fluency]]:
** Articulation rate: number of syllables per second
** Pauses:
***mean length of fluent runs between pauses
***mean length of pauses
***phonation/time ratio
***number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses
** Formulaic sequences: number of appropriate formulaic sequences repeated from training
* Accuracy: morphosyntactic accuracy (target-like use of several structures, including subject-verb agreement, tense errors, and definite/indefinite articles; see Mizera, 2006: 71)
* Complexity: number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses (cf. Nation, 1989); lexical variety as measured by the Mean Segmental Type-Token Ratio (Towell, Hawkins & Bazergui, 1996)

* ''Near transfer, immediate and delayed, [[normal post-test]]'': After completing the last training session, students performed a similar task (spontaneous speech about a given topic), to test whether any gains in [[fluency]] during the training task were maintained in a new instance of the same task. This test was given one week and four weeks after the last training session, each time with a different topic. These recordings were made as part of the Recorded Speaking Activities (RSAs) from the project "[[The self-correction of speech errors (McCormick, O’Neill & Siskin)]]".
* ''Far transfer, delayed'': The delayed posttests in Study 4 will include measures of vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth and grammatical knowledge.

== Independent variables ==
(For screenshots exemplifying some of the independent variables, see Screenshots below.)
* Studies 1-3: Pretest vs. immediate posttest vs. [[long-term retention]] posttest
* Study 1: Repetition vs. No Repetition
:: In the Repetition condition students talk about one topic three times. In the No Repetition condition, students talk about three different topics.
* Study 2:
** a. Pretraining vs. no pretraining of formulaic sequences
:: In the Formulaic Sequences condition, students receive a short training of a number of formulaic sequences before they start the [[fluency]] training (4/3/2 task). In the No Formulaic Sequences condition, students do not receive this pretraining, and only do the 4/3/2 task.
:* b. Low intermediate vs. high intermediate proficiency level
:: Low intermediate students are enrolled in ELI Speaking courses at level 3, high intermediate at level 4.
* Study 3: Shadowing text with formulaic sequences vs. without formulaic sequences
:: In the Formulaic Sequences condition, students shadow texts that contain formulaic sequences. In the No Formulaic Sequences condition, students shadow the same texts, from which the formulaic sequences that are being studied have been removed.
* Study 4:
** a. Repetition vs. No Repetition
:: The 4/3/2 task will include either 1 topic (repeated) or 3 topics (not repeated)
** b. Increasing Time Pressure vs. No Increasing Time Pressure
:: The 4/3/2 task will include recordings of either 4, 3 and 2 minutes, or 3, 3, and 3 minutes
* Study 5: Pretraining vs. no pretraining of vocabulary and grammar knowledge components
:: In the Pretraining condition, students perform short tasks before the 4/3/2 training sessions to prime their vocabulary and grammar knowledge. Students in the No Pretraining condition do not receive this pretraining.

== Hypotheses ==
* Study 1: It is hypothesized that repetition of a short speech (independent variable) under increasing time pressure ([[fluency pressure]]) increases articulation rate and sentence complexity (dependent variables), and decreases the number and length of pauses (dependent variables). The reason is that repetition will--temporarily--increase the [[availability]] of vocabulary and sentence structures (leading to increase speech rate, short and fewer pauses), leaving more [[cognitive headroom]] for other processes (higher accuracy and syntactic complexity).
* Study 2: It is hypothesized that the presence of a pretraining of formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom]] for sentence structure planning, which may lead to overall more fluent performance, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, the training of formulaic sequences may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]].
* Study 2: Students at different proficiency levels may benefit in different ways from the 4/3/2 training. At lower proficiency levels, repetition may facilitate the use of particular words and grammar, leading to more instances of correct usage of vocabulary, morphosyntax and syntax. At higher proficiency levels, on the other hand, repetition may lead to a greater number of reformulations resulting in higher complexity.
* Study 3: It is hypothesized that shadowing a speech that contains formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Since effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, performance may become more fluent overall, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, shadowing may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]]. In addition, shadowing a text with target-language pausing patterns is expected to lead to a more native-like pausing pattern in subsequent spontaneous speech, mainly in terms of position (dependent variables: interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses).
* Study 4a: We hypothesize that time pressure in combination with speech repetition encourages a strategy of retrieval (shorter pauses, high lexical overlap between two subsequent recordings), while repetition without time pressure encourages computation, leading to higher accuracy and complexity with lower fluency. We expect that the strategy of computation may result in higher fluency in the longer term, because it leads to more [[refinement]] and [[strength|strengthening]] of knowledge components, thus reducing hesitations and [[automaticity|accelerating retrieval]] in future speeches (cf. the [[assistance|assistance dilemma]]).
* Study 4b: We hypothesize that students with a broader vocabulary—-since they have more words to choose from—-will be able to find an appropriate word more often and more quickly, and therefore speak more fluently (shorter and fewer pauses, fewer hesitations). This is a measure of individual differences, and of general vocabulary knowledge. Greater vocabulary depth will also increase fluency, because students have more control over vocabulary items. In addition, it is predicted that retrieval speed for words used in the fluency training will show a increase in retrieval speed compared to items that were used in the fluency training. Finally, we expect to find a positive correlation between fluency in speech production and the accuracy scores on a test of morphosyntactic knowledge.
* Study 5: We hypothesize that the pretraining will lead to more fluent speech production, as well as more accurate and more complex output. We expect that this effect will be retained on the posttest and delayed posttest. This would be an example of [[accelerated future learning]] through [[feature focusing]].

* ''Near transfer, immediate'': In all studies, a posttest is administered about a week after the last training session. This will be a similar task—a 2-minute monologue—with new content—a new topic.
* ''Near transfer, retention'': In Studies 1 and 2, another posttest is administered two to three weeks after the immediate posttest (three to four weeks after the last training session). Again, this will be a similar task—a 2-minute monologue—with new content—a new topic.
* ''[[accelerated future learning|Acceleration of future learning]]'': In Study 5, the students in the experimental condition first receive a pretraining of a number of formulaic sequences. It will be tested whether their [[fluency]], accuracy and syntactic complexity increases more during subsequent training, than of students who do not receive this pre-training.

== Findings ==
Data collection for Study 1 was completed in November, 2006. Data for Studies 2 and 3 were collected in the Spring semester of 2007.

Results of Study 1 show that, during each training session, the mean length of fluent runs increased mostly for the two conditions in which speeches were repeated (Repetition and Control/Repetition). In addition, for all three groups, pauses, on average, became shorter, and phonation/time ratio increased (i.e., students were able to fill more time with speech).

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the mean length of fluent runs for each recording in each of the sessions. It is clear that in sessions 1 and 2 the two conditions in which speeches were repeated pattern more closely together than the condition in which speeches were not repeated. The improvement in performance of the two repetition conditions seems more stable, whereas the performance of the No Repetition condition seems to be influenced by the topic of a particular speech.

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG]]

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG]]

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG]]

''Transfer to new topics''

On the immediate posttest, students in the Repetition condition are able to produce the same length of fluent runs with shorter pauses. Also, they fill relatively more time with speech (increased phonation/time ratio). It seems, therefore, that they speak more fluently than students in the No Repetition condition. However, on the delayed posttest, the No Repetition condition seems to have caught up with the Repetition condition, also having shorter pause lengths, with stable lengths of fluent runs.

Both groups reach a higher articulation rate, measured in syllables per minutes, on the delayed posttest. This may have been due to their continued Speaking classes in the English Language Institute, and may not have been related to this study.

It should be noted that the posttests were administered one and four weeks after the last session of the [[fluency]] training, and involved a new topic, which the students had not talked about during the 4/3/2 training.

{|+ Preliminary results Study 1
!   !! align="center" colspan="3" | No Repetition (n=9) !!   !! colspan="3" | Repetition (n=10) !!   !! colspan="3" | Control&Repetition (n=5)
|-
! align="center" |   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !!   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !!   !! Pre-pretest !! Pretest !! Immediate
|-
! align="center" |   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest !!   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest2 !!   !!   !!   !! Posttest
|-
! align="left" | Length of fluent runs (in syllables) *
| align="center" | 4.42 || align="center" | 4.11 || align="center" | 4.27 ||   || align="center" | 4.42 || align="center" | 4.82 || align="center" | 4.69 ||   || align="center" | 4.58 || align="center" | 4.80 || align="center" | '''5.44'''
|-
! align="left" | Pause length (in sec.) *
| align="center" | 0.92 || align="center" | 1.08 || align="center" | 0.96 ||   || align="center" | 1.18 || align="center" | '''0.96''' || align="center" | 0.99 ||   || align="center" | 0.99 || align="center" | 0.97 || align="center" | 0.84
|-
! align="left" | Phonation/time ratio *
| align="center" | 0.59 || align="center" | 0.55 || align="center" | 0.57 ||   || align="center" | 0.54 || align="center" | '''0.60''' || align="center" | 0.59 ||   || align="center" | 0.57 || align="center" | 0.59 || align="center" | 0.62
|-
! align="left" | Syllables per minute
| align="center" | 194 || align="center" | 190 || align="center" | '''204''' ||   || align="center" | 196 || align="center" | 196 || align="center" | '''204''' ||   || align="center" | 209 || align="center" | 214 || align="center" | 232
|}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Significant interaction Condition x Time

The results of Study 1 suggest that knowledge becomes more easily accessible in subsequent speeches, since phonation/time ratio increases while pauses on average become shorter and the length of fluent runs is at least stable. In the two conditions in which speeches are repeated, the length of fluent runs increases, indicating an advantage over the no-repetition condition, in which this length is stable. It seems, therefore, that repeating a speech about a particular topic enables students to produce longer fluent runs. The overall advantage of these two conditions over the no-repetition condition parallels patterns in the pre- and posttest data.

Overall, it seems that the performance of the no-repetition condition was more variable across speeches. This may be due to an effect of topic, which may be more or less familiar, complex, or linguistically difficult (e.g., eliciting present vs. past tense).

== Explanation ==
This project is part of the Refinement and Fluency cluster. The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis is that the structure of instructional activities affects learning.
This project addresses the core issues of task analysis, [[fluency]] from basics, [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] evaluation, and scheduling of practice. The 4/3/2 task has been analysed into its components. In Study 1, the effect of the component of repetition is investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar is expected to increase [[fluency]]. This will be the case in the Repetition condition, where students have the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students are encouraged to use formulaic sequences that have been taught before training. In Study 3 it is investigated whether shadowing promotes the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies take place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

== Further information ==

For a summer intern project in June and July 2007, Kara Schultz did a multiple case study of six students from Study 1. The project was a first step towards more in-depth analyses of the data of all three studies in the ESL fluency project, addressing the following research questions:
* Does the absence of the need to generate new semantic content in the two retellings during the 4/3/2 task free up headroom, resulting in changes in fluency, morphosyntactic accuracy, and complexity?
* If so, what types of changes occur, and what are the causes for these changes?
* Is there long-term retention of the changes (one week)?

In September 2007 the PSLC executive committee approved our new project plan, in which we proposed follow-up studies that investigate the effect of time pressure and the role of specific knowledge components (vocabulary, grammar) in oral fluency. These studies will be run in the Spring and Fall semesters of 2008.

'''Peer-reviewed presentations'''

De Jong, N., McCormick, D., O'Neill, C., and Bradin Siskin, C., ''Self-correction and fluency in ESL speaking development''. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2007 Conference in Costa Mesa, California, April 2007.

'''Other presentations'''

De Jong, N., ''Approaches to the study of second language acquisition''. Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center (invited by Prof. Den Dikken and Prof. Otheguy), December 2007

De Jong, N., ''Oral fluency development in ESL classrooms''. Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center (invited by Prof. Klein), November 2007

De Jong, N., Presentation of the software component at the ''Multimedia Showcase'' sponsored by the Robert Henderson Media Center at the University of Pittsburgh, September 2006

== Descendants ==
[[Fluency Summer Intern Project]]

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (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.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.

==Screen shots==
[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-notes.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of the screen where students take notes before they start speaking.

[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-speech.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of the screen where students record their speeches

[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-questions.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of some of the questions after each speech has been recorded.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2008-12-04T15:41:38Z

208.120.248.181: /* Abstract */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! Project title
| Fostering fluency in second language learning:
Testing two types of instruction
|-
! PI
| Dr. N. de Jong (faculty, Queens College of CUNY)
|-
! Co-PIs
| Dr. L.K. Halderman (post-doc, University of Pittsburgh)
|-
|
| Dr. C.A. Perfetti (faculty, University of Pittsburgh)
|-
! Others with > 160 hours
| Claire Siskin, Jessica Hogan, John laPlante, Mary Lou Vercelotti
|-
! Study start and end dates
| Study 1: September - November 2006
|-
|
| Study 2: January - March 2007
|-
|
| Study 3: January - March 2007
|-
|
| Study 4: January - March 2008
|-
|
| Study 5: September - November 2008
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 200
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 600 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Recordings of Studies 1, 2 and 3 available
|}

== Abstract==
Many studies have investigated the effect of exposure to language on [[fluency]]. It has been established, for instance, that [[fluency]] increases after a period of immersion or study abroad (Freed et al., 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). However, few types of instruction have been designed to increase oral [[fluency]], and even fewer have been tested.

One such type of instruction is Nation’s 4/3/2 procedure, in which learners prepare a four-minute talk and repeat it twice to different partners, first in three minutes, then in two minutes (Nation, 1989). He found that the number of hesitations decreased in the retellings, and that sentences were more complex. We may characterize such an outcome as resulting from the [[fluency pressure]] exerted by the 4/3/2 procedure. It was not investigated, however, whether the effect transferred to new speeches, which is what we showed in Study 1. Another task that may increase [[fluency]] is shadowing, in which student talk along with a recording of a short speech by a native speaker. Shadowing may also increase the feature [[strength]] of formulaic sequences, resulting in faster access to them in subsequent production tasks.

This project is transformative in the sense that it moves research on fluency away from single- or multiple-case studies, using technology to collect and analyze larger amounts of oral production data (30 to 40 students per study), and to generate multiple measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. For example, not only articulation rate is measured, but also pause length, length of fluent run, and phonation/time ratio.

Study 1 investigated what characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by the 4/3/2 procedure. Measures included the number of syllables per second (speech rate); mean length of fluent runs between pauses; phonation/time ratio; number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses; morphosyntactic accuracy; and number of embedded clauses (syntactic complexity). The posttest tested transfer to a different topic.

In Study 2 we investigated whether [[fluency]] is further enhanced by a pretraining of formulaic sequences, like ''the point is that'', ''what I’m saying is that'', and ''and so on''). Fast and effortless access to these sequences frees up [[cognitive headroom]] which can then be used to construct sentences. This results in fewer and shorter pauses, and/or greater lexical and structural complexity.

Study 3 investigated whether shadowing leads to increased use of formulaic sequences ([[chunking]]) and native-like pauses in subsequent production tasks.

In studies 4 and 5 are investigating in further detail how the characteristics of the 4/3/2 task lead to fluency development. In Study 4a, we investigated how time pressure affects the benefits of repetition in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity. We examined recordings both from the 4/3/2 task itself, and from long-term retention tests. In addition, we investigated the role of specific knowledge components in fluency development.

In Study 4b we tracked how the control and retrieval of specific vocabulary items and morphosyntactic structures develop as a result of the 4/3/2 training. Next, in Study 5, we examined whether priming these same items leads to greater accuracy and fluency during training and later. Data collection for Studies 4a, 4b and 5 took place in the Spring and Fall 2008 semesters, in the English as a Second Language (ESL) learnlab (level 4, higher intermediate). Data analysis is currently in progress.

== Glossary ==

; 4/3/2 procedure: A teaching method in which students talk about a topic for four minutes. Then they repeat their speech in three minutes, and again in two minutes.
; Shadowing: Repeating speech while it is being spoken.
; Formulaic sequence: A sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated (see Wray, 2002, p. 9), e.g., ''The point is that'', ''What I'm trying to say is that'', and ''Take something like''.
; Articulation rate: Number of syllables per second
; Phonation/time ratio: The percentage of time spent speaking as a percentage proportion to the time taken to produce the speech sample
; Morphosyntactic accuracy: In this study we will investigate subject-verb agreement, tense errors, definite/indefinite articles
; Syntactic complexity: In this study we will investigate the number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses

== Research questions ==

* Study 1:
** a. What characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by repetition of a short speech under increasing time pressure (the 4/3/2 procedure)?
** b. Does knowledge [[refinement]] take place during the 4/3/2 training, in terms of morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity?
* Study 2:
** a. Does pretraining of formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in the subsequent 4/3/2 procedure and posttest? If so, does this increase overall [[fluency]]?
** b. Does proficiency level affect [[fluency]] development during the 4/3/2 procedure?
* Study 3:
** a. What characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by shadowing a text with formulaic sequences and a pausing pattern characteristic of spontaneous speech?
** b. Does shadowing texts with formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in the posttest? If so, does this increase overall [[fluency]]?

For studies 2 and 3, questionnaire data were collected about the students' contact with the second language (English) and their first language, in terms of ''types of contact'' (e.g., listening to the radio, talking to friends, talking to strangers) and ''amount of contact'' (number of days per week, number of hours per day). We will explore whether these [[individual differences]] affect pretest performance and fluency development.

* Study 4:
** a. How do time pressure and repetition affect fluency, accuracy and complexity in the 4/3/2 task?
** b. Which knowledge components contribute to fluency development in the 4/3/2 task?
* Study 5:
** Does priming lead to an immediate and a long-term increase in fluency, accuracy and complexity?

== Background and significance ==

Many studies in the field of second language acquisition that have studied [[fluency]] have investigated the effect of study abroad, immersion and regular classroom practice on [[fluency]] (Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey, 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). Very few studies, however, have investigated specific activities that lead to [[fluency]], which can be done in classrooms. Two such activities are tested in this project.

The first activity that is tested is the 4/3/2 procedure as proposed by Nation (1989). He investigated the development of [[fluency]] during this task, but used a limited number of measures and did not test the long-term effect: he only analyzed [[fluency]] during the task itself, not during the following weeks. This project will test the long-term effect and will include more measures, such as length and location of pauses. An attempt will be made to link these measures to cognitive mechanisms.

A general effect of the 4/3/2 task on fluency development was found in Study 1. The effect will be investigated in more detail in Study 4a, focusing on the two main characteristics of the task: repetition and increasing time pressure.

The contribution of knowledge components is tested in Studies 2, 4b and 5. In Study 2, students received a pretraining of a set of formulaic sequences before the first 4/3/2 fluency training session. In Study 5 students will receive a pretraining at the start of each 4/3/2 fluency training session. The knowledge components in this pretraining will be selected based on the results of Study 4b, which investigates the role of vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth and grammatical knowledge in oral fluency.

Study 3 investigated whether shadowing affected fluency development. In addition, it was tested whether the presence of formulaic sequences in the model speeches increased use of those sequences in later speaking tasks, and whether such an increase affected [[fluency]] measures.

== Dependent variables ==
* Temporal measures of [[fluency]]:
** Articulation rate: number of syllables per second
** Pauses:
***mean length of fluent runs between pauses
***mean length of pauses
***phonation/time ratio
***number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses
** Formulaic sequences: number of appropriate formulaic sequences repeated from training
* Accuracy: morphosyntactic accuracy (target-like use of several structures, including subject-verb agreement, tense errors, and definite/indefinite articles; see Mizera, 2006: 71)
* Complexity: number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses (cf. Nation, 1989); lexical variety as measured by the Mean Segmental Type-Token Ratio (Towell, Hawkins & Bazergui, 1996)

* ''Near transfer, immediate and delayed, [[normal post-test]]'': After completing the last training session, students performed a similar task (spontaneous speech about a given topic), to test whether any gains in [[fluency]] during the training task were maintained in a new instance of the same task. This test was given one week and four weeks after the last training session, each time with a different topic. These recordings were made as part of the Recorded Speaking Activities (RSAs) from the project "[[The self-correction of speech errors (McCormick, O’Neill & Siskin)]]".
* ''Far transfer, delayed'': The delayed posttests in Study 4 will include measures of vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth and grammatical knowledge.

== Independent variables ==
(For screenshots exemplifying some of the independent variables, see Screenshots below.)
* Studies 1-3: Pretest vs. immediate posttest vs. [[long-term retention]] posttest
* Study 1: Repetition vs. No Repetition
:: In the Repetition condition students talk about one topic three times. In the No Repetition condition, students talk about three different topics.
* Study 2:
** a. Pretraining vs. no pretraining of formulaic sequences
:: In the Formulaic Sequences condition, students receive a short training of a number of formulaic sequences before they start the [[fluency]] training (4/3/2 task). In the No Formulaic Sequences condition, students do not receive this pretraining, and only do the 4/3/2 task.
:* b. Low intermediate vs. high intermediate proficiency level
:: Low intermediate students are enrolled in ELI Speaking courses at level 3, high intermediate at level 4.
* Study 3: Shadowing text with formulaic sequences vs. without formulaic sequences
:: In the Formulaic Sequences condition, students shadow texts that contain formulaic sequences. In the No Formulaic Sequences condition, students shadow the same texts, from which the formulaic sequences that are being studied have been removed.
* Study 4:
** a. Repetition vs. No Repetition
:: The 4/3/2 task will include either 1 topic (repeated) or 3 topics (not repeated)
** b. Increasing Time Pressure vs. No Increasing Time Pressure
:: The 4/3/2 task will include recordings of either 4, 3 and 2 minutes, or 3, 3, and 3 minutes
* Study 5: Pretraining vs. no pretraining of vocabulary and grammar knowledge components
:: In the Pretraining condition, students perform short tasks before the 4/3/2 training sessions to prime their vocabulary and grammar knowledge. Students in the No Pretraining condition do not receive this pretraining.

== Hypotheses ==
* Study 1: It is hypothesized that repetition of a short speech (independent variable) under increasing time pressure ([[fluency pressure]]) increases articulation rate and sentence complexity (dependent variables), and decreases the number and length of pauses (dependent variables). The reason is that repetition will--temporarily--increase the [[availability]] of vocabulary and sentence structures (leading to increase speech rate, short and fewer pauses), leaving more [[cognitive headroom]] for other processes (higher accuracy and syntactic complexity).
* Study 2: It is hypothesized that the presence of a pretraining of formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom]] for sentence structure planning, which may lead to overall more fluent performance, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, the training of formulaic sequences may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]].
* Study 2: Students at different proficiency levels may benefit in different ways from the 4/3/2 training. At lower proficiency levels, repetition may facilitate the use of particular words and grammar, leading to more instances of correct usage of vocabulary, morphosyntax and syntax. At higher proficiency levels, on the other hand, repetition may lead to a greater number of reformulations resulting in higher complexity.
* Study 3: It is hypothesized that shadowing a speech that contains formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Since effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, performance may become more fluent overall, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, shadowing may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]]. In addition, shadowing a text with target-language pausing patterns is expected to lead to a more native-like pausing pattern in subsequent spontaneous speech, mainly in terms of position (dependent variables: interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses).
* Study 4a: We hypothesize that time pressure in combination with speech repetition encourages a strategy of retrieval (shorter pauses, high lexical overlap between two subsequent recordings), while repetition without time pressure encourages computation, leading to higher accuracy and complexity with lower fluency. We expect that the strategy of computation may result in higher fluency in the longer term, because it leads to more [[refinement]] and [[strength|strengthening]] of knowledge components, thus reducing hesitations and [[automaticity|accelerating retrieval]] in future speeches (cf. the [[assistance|assistance dilemma]]).
* Study 4b: We hypothesize that students with a broader vocabulary—-since they have more words to choose from—-will be able to find an appropriate word more often and more quickly, and therefore speak more fluently (shorter and fewer pauses, fewer hesitations). This is a measure of individual differences, and of general vocabulary knowledge. Greater vocabulary depth will also increase fluency, because students have more control over vocabulary items. In addition, it is predicted that retrieval speed for words used in the fluency training will show a increase in retrieval speed compared to items that were used in the fluency training. Finally, we expect to find a positive correlation between fluency in speech production and the accuracy scores on a test of morphosyntactic knowledge.
* Study 5: We hypothesize that the pretraining will lead to more fluent speech production, as well as more accurate and more complex output. We expect that this effect will be retained on the posttest and delayed posttest. This would be an example of [[accelerated future learning]] through [[feature focusing]].

* ''Near transfer, immediate'': In all studies, a posttest is administered about a week after the last training session. This will be a similar task—a 2-minute monologue—with new content—a new topic.
* ''Near transfer, retention'': In Studies 1 and 2, another posttest is administered two to three weeks after the immediate posttest (three to four weeks after the last training session). Again, this will be a similar task—a 2-minute monologue—with new content—a new topic.
* ''[[accelerated future learning|Acceleration of future learning]]'': In Study 5, the students in the experimental condition first receive a pretraining of a number of formulaic sequences. It will be tested whether their [[fluency]], accuracy and syntactic complexity increases more during subsequent training, than of students who do not receive this pre-training.

== Findings ==
Data collection for Study 1 was completed in November, 2006. Data for Studies 2 and 3 were collected in the Spring semester of 2007.

Results of Study 1 show that, during each training session, the mean length of fluent runs increased mostly for the two conditions in which speeches were repeated (Repetition and Control/Repetition). In addition, for all three groups, pauses, on average, became shorter, and phonation/time ratio increased (i.e., students were able to fill more time with speech).

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the mean length of fluent runs for each recording in each of the sessions. It is clear that in sessions 1 and 2 the two conditions in which speeches were repeated pattern more closely together than the condition in which speeches were not repeated. The improvement in performance of the two repetition conditions seems more stable, whereas the performance of the No Repetition condition seems to be influenced by the topic of a particular speech.

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG]]

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG]]

[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG]]

''Transfer to new topics''

On the immediate posttest, students in the Repetition condition are able to produce the same length of fluent runs with shorter pauses. Also, they fill relatively more time with speech (increased phonation/time ratio). It seems, therefore, that they speak more fluently than students in the No Repetition condition. However, on the delayed posttest, the No Repetition condition seems to have caught up with the Repetition condition, also having shorter pause lengths, with stable lengths of fluent runs.

Both groups reach a higher articulation rate, measured in syllables per minutes, on the delayed posttest. This may have been due to their continued Speaking classes in the English Language Institute, and may not have been related to this study.

It should be noted that the posttests were administered one and four weeks after the last session of the [[fluency]] training, and involved a new topic, which the students had not talked about during the 4/3/2 training.

{|+ Preliminary results Study 1
!   !! align="center" colspan="3" | No Repetition (n=9) !!   !! colspan="3" | Repetition (n=10) !!   !! colspan="3" | Control&Repetition (n=5)
|-
! align="center" |   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !!   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !!   !! Pre-pretest !! Pretest !! Immediate
|-
! align="center" |   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest !!   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest2 !!   !!   !!   !! Posttest
|-
! align="left" | Length of fluent runs (in syllables) *
| align="center" | 4.42 || align="center" | 4.11 || align="center" | 4.27 ||   || align="center" | 4.42 || align="center" | 4.82 || align="center" | 4.69 ||   || align="center" | 4.58 || align="center" | 4.80 || align="center" | '''5.44'''
|-
! align="left" | Pause length (in sec.) *
| align="center" | 0.92 || align="center" | 1.08 || align="center" | 0.96 ||   || align="center" | 1.18 || align="center" | '''0.96''' || align="center" | 0.99 ||   || align="center" | 0.99 || align="center" | 0.97 || align="center" | 0.84
|-
! align="left" | Phonation/time ratio *
| align="center" | 0.59 || align="center" | 0.55 || align="center" | 0.57 ||   || align="center" | 0.54 || align="center" | '''0.60''' || align="center" | 0.59 ||   || align="center" | 0.57 || align="center" | 0.59 || align="center" | 0.62
|-
! align="left" | Syllables per minute
| align="center" | 194 || align="center" | 190 || align="center" | '''204''' ||   || align="center" | 196 || align="center" | 196 || align="center" | '''204''' ||   || align="center" | 209 || align="center" | 214 || align="center" | 232
|}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Significant interaction Condition x Time

The results of Study 1 suggest that knowledge becomes more easily accessible in subsequent speeches, since phonation/time ratio increases while pauses on average become shorter and the length of fluent runs is at least stable. In the two conditions in which speeches are repeated, the length of fluent runs increases, indicating an advantage over the no-repetition condition, in which this length is stable. It seems, therefore, that repeating a speech about a particular topic enables students to produce longer fluent runs. The overall advantage of these two conditions over the no-repetition condition parallels patterns in the pre- and posttest data.

Overall, it seems that the performance of the no-repetition condition was more variable across speeches. This may be due to an effect of topic, which may be more or less familiar, complex, or linguistically difficult (e.g., eliciting present vs. past tense).

== Explanation ==
This project is part of the Refinement and Fluency cluster. The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis is that the structure of instructional activities affects learning.
This project addresses the core issues of task analysis, [[fluency]] from basics, [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] evaluation, and scheduling of practice. The 4/3/2 task has been analysed into its components. In Study 1, the effect of the component of repetition is investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar is expected to increase [[fluency]]. This will be the case in the Repetition condition, where students have the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students are encouraged to use formulaic sequences that have been taught before training. In Study 3 it is investigated whether shadowing promotes the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies take place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

== Further information ==

For a summer intern project in June and July 2007, Kara Schultz did a multiple case study of six students from Study 1. The project was a first step towards more in-depth analyses of the data of all three studies in the ESL fluency project, addressing the following research questions:
* Does the absence of the need to generate new semantic content in the two retellings during the 4/3/2 task free up headroom, resulting in changes in fluency, morphosyntactic accuracy, and complexity?
* If so, what types of changes occur, and what are the causes for these changes?
* Is there long-term retention of the changes (one week)?

In September 2007 the PSLC executive committee approved our new project plan, in which we proposed follow-up studies that investigate the effect of time pressure and the role of specific knowledge components (vocabulary, grammar) in oral fluency. These studies will be run in the Spring and Fall semesters of 2008.

'''Peer-reviewed presentations'''

De Jong, N., McCormick, D., O'Neill, C., and Bradin Siskin, C., ''Self-correction and fluency in ESL speaking development''. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2007 Conference in Costa Mesa, California, April 2007.

'''Other presentations'''

De Jong, N., ''Approaches to the study of second language acquisition''. Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center (invited by Prof. Den Dikken and Prof. Otheguy), December 2007

De Jong, N., ''Oral fluency development in ESL classrooms''. Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center (invited by Prof. Klein), November 2007

De Jong, N., Presentation of the software component at the ''Multimedia Showcase'' sponsored by the Robert Henderson Media Center at the University of Pittsburgh, September 2006

== Descendants ==
[[Fluency Summer Intern Project]]

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (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.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.

==Screen shots==
[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-notes.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of the screen where students take notes before they start speaking.

[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-speech.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of the screen where students record their speeches

[[Image:Fluency_screenshot-questions.jpg|600px]]

Screenshot of some of the questions after each speech has been recorded.