Theory Wiki - User contributions [en]

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2012-09-14T08:52:45Z

Ndjong: /* PSLC-related publications and presentations */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
|
| Study 8: October - December 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 350
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 825 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (July 2011) Paper about study 1 is published; paper about study 4 is under review; papers about studies 2 and 6 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription and coding of studies 7 and 8 is in progress. Analysis of studies 5 and 6 is in progress.
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Note: Detailed findings were presented at AAAL 2011 and will be reported in De Jong and Vercellotti (forthcoming).

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

(Frog and Turtle consisted of six pictures selected from wordless storybooks by Mayer, 1967, 1971)

(All other pictures were six-picture stories from Heaton, 1965)

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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.

== Descendants ==
[[Fluency Summer Intern Project | Fluency Summer Intern Project 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. (to appear). Oefenen met vloeiend spreken: Wat, hoe en waarom? [Practicing speaking fluently: What, how, and why?] ''Vakwerk''.

De Jong, N. (2012). Short and longer term effects of time pressure on fluency in second language learners. ''Paper presented at the Workshop Fluent Speech'', November, 2012, Utrecht.

De Jong, N. (2012). Technieken voor het oefenen van vloeiend spreken. [Techniques for practicing speaking fluently] ''Workshop given at the LES Conference'', November, 2012, Amsterdam.

De Jong, N. & Seman, J-M. (2012). Effects of immediate task repetition, prompt type, and time pressure on repeated retrieval of vocabulary. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum'', October, 2012, Pittsburgh, PA.

De Jong, N. (2012). Oefenen met vloeiend spreken: Wat, hoe en waarom? [Practicing speaking fluently: What, how, and why?] ''Paper presented at the BVNT2 Conference'', June 2012, Hoeven.

De Jong, N. (2012). Does time pressure help or hinder oral fluency? In: N. de Jong, K. Juffermans, M. Keijzer, & L. Rasier (Eds.), ''Papers of the Anéla 2012 Applied Linguistics Conference'' (pp. 43-52). Delft: Eburon.

De Jong, N. (2012). Does time pressure help or hinder oral fluency? ''Paper presented at the Anéla Applied Linguistics Conference'', May 2012, Lunteren.

De Jong, N. & Poelmans, P. (2011). Accuracy and complexity in second language speech: Do specific measures make the difference? ''Paper presented at the EuroSLA conference'', Stockholm, September 2011.

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (in preparation). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2012-09-14T08:49:09Z

Ndjong: /* PSLC-related publications and presentations */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
|
| Study 8: October - December 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 350
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 825 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (July 2011) Paper about study 1 is published; paper about study 4 is under review; papers about studies 2 and 6 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription and coding of studies 7 and 8 is in progress. Analysis of studies 5 and 6 is in progress.
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Note: Detailed findings were presented at AAAL 2011 and will be reported in De Jong and Vercellotti (forthcoming).

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

(Frog and Turtle consisted of six pictures selected from wordless storybooks by Mayer, 1967, 1971)

(All other pictures were six-picture stories from Heaton, 1965)

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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.

== Descendants ==
[[Fluency Summer Intern Project | Fluency Summer Intern Project 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. (to appear). Oefenen met vloeiend spreken: Wat, hoe en waarom? ''Vakwerk''.

De Jong, N. (2012). Short and longer term effects of time pressure on fluency in second language learners. ''Paper presented at the Workshop Fluent Speech'', November, 2012, Utrecht.

De Jong, N. (2012). Technieken voor het oefenen van vloeiend spreken. ''Workshop given at the LES Conference'', November, 2012, Amsterdam.

De Jong, N. & Seman, J-M. (2012). Effects of immediate task repetition, prompt type, and time pressure on repeated retrieval of vocabulary. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum'', October, 2012, Pittsburgh, PA.

De Jong, N. (2012). Oefenen met vloeiend spreken: wat, hoe en waarom? ''Paper presented at the BVNT2 Conference'', June 2012, Hoeven.

De Jong, N. (2012). Does time pressure help or hinder oral fluency? In: N. de Jong, K. Juffermans, M. Keijzer, & L. Rasier (Eds.), ''Papers of the Anéla 2012 Applied Linguistics Conference'' (pp. 43-52). Delft: Eburon.

De Jong, N. (2012). Does time pressure help or hinder oral fluency? ''Paper presented at the Anéla Applied Linguistics Conference'', May 2012, Lunteren.

De Jong, N. & Poelmans, P. (2011). Accuracy and complexity in second language speech: Do specific measures make the difference? ''Paper presented at the EuroSLA conference'', Stockholm, September 2011.

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (in preparation). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2012-03-13T14:17:32Z

Ndjong: /* PSLC-related publications and presentations */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
|
| Study 8: October - December 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 350
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 825 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (July 2011) Paper about study 1 is published; paper about study 4 is under review; papers about studies 2 and 6 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription and coding of studies 7 and 8 is in progress. Analysis of studies 5 and 6 is in progress.
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Note: Detailed findings were presented at AAAL 2011 and will be reported in De Jong and Vercellotti (forthcoming).

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

(Frog and Turtle consisted of six pictures selected from wordless storybooks by Mayer, 1967, 1971)

(All other pictures were six-picture stories from Heaton, 1965)

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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.

== Descendants ==
[[Fluency Summer Intern Project | Fluency Summer Intern Project 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (in preparation). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2011-09-01T11:06:02Z

Ndjong: Undo revision 12196 by Elenilowery (Talk)

== Abstract ==

[[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning#Study_1:_Repetition.2C_proceduralization_and_L2_fluency|De Jong & Perfetti (in press)]] showed that high-intermediate ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics. This study investigated whether repetition of the monologues had a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures.

Twenty-four high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s were assigned to two conditions (Repetition, No Repetition). They performed three training sessions, and a pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test. Two verbs (''buy'', ''find'') and two grammatical structures (auxiliary - AUX; infinitive - INF) were selected for analysis. An additional group of high repeaters was analyzed.

Results showed that the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group. The High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition, and they increased INF use at the post-test.

In conclusion, the 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

== Background and significance ==

[[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning#Study_1:_Repetition.2C_proceduralization_and_L2_fluency|De Jong & Perfetti (in press)]] showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?
* Does repetition of grammatical structures in the 4/3/2 task lead to increased use of these structures in other contexts?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:Fluency SI10-graphs.gif|600px|Results]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

=== Notes ===
* Frequency data was limited in the pre- and post-test analysis, since students spoke for only two minutes each, compared to nine minutes total in the 4/3/2 sessions.
* Effects may have been topic-driven . The topics in the 4/3/2 task may have elicited use of certain words or structures that were not elicited by the topics in the pre- and post-test.

== Related presentations ==
Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Cognitive Factors

2011-07-13T12:59:30Z

Ndjong: Undo revision 12081 by Jmorris14 (Talk)

The research in this thrust is aimed at understanding cognitive learning—changes in knowledge—that result from [[instructional events]]. It builds on work in the learning sciences field at large and on research carried out in the PSLC over its first four years within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster and part of the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster, thereby merging two themes that organized the first phase of the PSLC. Each of these clusters was concerned with identifying instructional events that produce robust learning. They differed mainly in that the relevant theme within the Coordinative Learning cluster had a specific focus on instructional events that included more than one input. (A second theme within the Coordinative Learning cluster was on instructional events that provoke learning events involving more than one reasoning method and this theme will be continued in the [[Metacognition and Motivation]] thrust). In the fifth year of the PSLC, we carry forward research from each of these clusters, while making a transition to an additional set of research questions. Although we frame this section in terms of the new Cognitive Factors thrust, the research carried out during the 5th year has been initiated in the current Refinement and Fluency and in part of the Coordinative Learning clusters.

Our work on cognitive factors encompasses a triangulated set of events around learning: learning events, instructional events, and assessment events. Anything from a lesson to an entire curriculum can be considered a sequence of events whose durations vary from seconds to semesters. The hypotheses of the Cognitive Factors Thrust concern how instructional procedures (e.g., decisions about the learner’s task, materials, practice, feedback) affect learning events and thus the outcomes of learning. Learning involves the acquisition of [[knowledge components]], an increase in the [[feature validity]] and the [[strength]] of these components, and the integration of these components through practice. Our basic hypotheses include the following:

* Explicitness: Instruction that draws the learner’s attention to valid features that support the relevant knowledge components leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not.
* Assistance: The degree of assistance in the instruction affects learning in relation to student knowledge on specific knowledge components.
* Practice: Practice schedules can be optimized using models of learning based on memory activation assumptions.
* Integration: Knowledge components that are integrated during learning and practice lead to more robust learning and fluent performance across different tasks.
* [http://www.superiorpapers.com/ research papers]

The research plan tests these hypotheses across knowledge domains, as exemplified by the following projects:

''Language background factors in L2 learning''. This work illustrates the synergies that develop in the PSLC’s LearnLab context, in this case between English as a second language (ESL) director Alan Juffs and other PSLC language researchers. In a prior cluster meeting, Juffs presented ESL classroom data that compared various L1 background students in their performance on transcribing their own speech, a standard piece of instruction in the ESL curriculum. The result that caught the interest of PSLC researchers (Dunlap, Guan, Perfetti) was the very poor spelling performance of Arabic-background students, relative to Spanish, Korean, and Chinese ESL students, despite comparable levels of spoken language performance. Furthermore, Juffs identified this discrepancy as a long-standing one in ESL instruction. Although one might hypothesize that a key factor is orthographic differences between L1 and L2, this seems unlikely here. Spanish to English is closer, but Chinese to English is farther in L1-L2 orthographic similarity. The first steps toward a new study have been taken with the help of a PSLC summer intern, who coded the errors made in spelling by all L1 background learners. The pattern of errors can be characterized as qualitatively similar, differing across languages quantitatively, suggesting a generalized English spelling problem. This analysis has led to the hypothesis that feature focusing—attention to full spelling patterns—is different across the L1 backgrounds, which we will test in a training experiment that focuses attention on spelling patterns.

''Second language vocabulary learning''. Another new project originating within the Refinement and Fluency cluster will study English vocabulary learning using REAP. Based on recent research by Balass on the trade-offs between explicit (dictionary-based) and implicit (inferences from text) instruction in learning new words by monolingual subjects (Bolger et al, 2008), the new work will apply this tradeoff idea to second language learners. The hypothesis is that allowing learners to view definitions is more effective after they have read a sentence containing the word to be learned. This hypothesis reflects ideas about assistance (giving a definition versus inferring it) and the assumption that learning word meanings from context depends on the overlapping memory traces established by specific encounters with the word (Bolger et al, 2008). REAP allows us to use authentic texts for studies with students of various L1 backgrounds learning English through reading texts in their areas of interest. In our experiments, we will vary the availability of definitions provided on-line as part of the text reading.

''Explicit instruction and practice schedules in algebra and second language learning''. Foreign language learning in classrooms has stimulated research on explicit vs implicit instruction, with conclusions favoring the value of explicit instruction (Norris and Ortega, 2000). A major conclusion from PSLC work is that instruction that draws attention to critical valid features—“feature focusing”—is important in acquiring knowledge components for complex tasks. This conclusion has evidence from studies of L2 learning of the English grammar by Levin, Friskoff, Pavlik, studies of radical learning by Dunlap et al and by Pavlik, and by studies by Zhang and MacWhinney and by Liu et al on learning spoken syllables through pin-yin (alphabetic spellings). Projects in French dictation (MacWhinney) and French grammar (Presson & MacWhinney), Chinese dictation (Zhang & MacWhinney), algebra (Pavlik) and arithmetical computation (Fiez) also reflect this theme. Much of this work has been combined with completely general hypotheses about practice, based on Pavlik and Anderson (2005)’s model that describes the trade-off between the benefit of spaced practice and the cost of longer retention intervals brought by spacing. The resulting optimized practice schedule has been tested in several PSLC studies of vocabulary learning in Chinese (Pavlik, MacWhinney, Koedinger; reported in Pavlik, 2006), cues to French gender (Presson, MacWhinney, & Pavlik). Important is the generality of the optimization model. It applies to all domain content and studies in both algebra and second language learning have nee carried out. The new work in second language and in algebra builds on the synergies that have emerged from collaborations between domain researchers (e.g. MacWhinney) and Pavlik around experiments and models for optimizing practice. For Chinese, MacWhinney, Zhang, and Pavlik have developed a tutor for Chinese dictation and vocabulary learning that is being used in 18 sites. Data from these sites will be used to test the results of practice schedules and the form of instructional events (e.g. cues to gender in French) with longer term measures of robust learning. Because each of the tutors logs results to DataShop, the student records are a rich source of data for further study, including researchers beyond the PSLC.

''Learning the logic of unconfounded experiments.'' We will extend our research on college level science topics (chemistry and physics) to middle school science, with a focus on the cross-domain topic of experimental design. The ability to design unconfounded experiments and make valid inferences from their outcomes is an essential skill in scientific reasoning. The key idea here is CVS: the Control of Variables Strategy. CVS is the fundamental idea underlying the design of unconfounded experiments from which valid, causal, inferences can be made. Its acquisition is an important step in the development of scientific reasoning skills , because it provides a strong constraint on search in the space of experiments (Klahr, 2000). The Tutor for Experimental Design (TED), developed by Klahr’s research team, builds on previous work studying the different paths of learning and transfer that result from teaching CVS using different instructional methods that span from direct instruction to discovery (Chen & Klahr, 1999) and show differences along the “physical-virtual” dimension (Triona & Klahr, 2007). We build on this by constructing of a semi-autonomous tutor, then developing a full computer based tutor in Pittsburgh middle school LearnLabs and carrying out in vivo experiments with TED.

''Integration of knowledge components.'' Isolated knowledge components are not sufficient to produce fluent use of knowledge. Integrating knowledge components is important both in authentic practice that follows acquisition of knowledge components but, we hypothesize, also in the initial acquisition of components. Some of our prior work in coordinative learning establishes some of the conditions that favor multiple inputs during learning (e.g., Davenport et al in stochiometry). And experiments on fluency support the value of repeated practice in single-topic speaking as way to support fluency (de Jong, Halderman and Perfetti). In new work we propose to build on progress we have made in the study of fluency in language (de Jong et al) and arithmetic (Fiez). For example, we will follow the discovery by de Jong and colleagues that when L2 speakers repeat a speech on a single topic, their fluency scores increase on a number of measures. We will test the hypothesis that this results from the advantage of retrieving the same conceptual and lexical knowledge and overall speech plan on successive attempts, allowing fluency to increase on procedural components supported by chunking of words to phrases. We are accumulating a large database in the English LearnLab that will support the testing of additional hypotheses. The idea that some relatively simple learning (e.g. 3-5 knowledge components) is supported by integration from the beginning is being tested by Liu, Guan & Perfetti in a study of learning to read Chinese characters. The hypothesis is that when students write unfamiliar characters within the same 60-second time period that they read the character and try to learn its meaning and pronunciation, they will show more robust learning measured by reading tasks. Underlying this hypothesis is the idea that the representation of a character (or other objects that follow structural principles) can be perceptual-motor as well as visual.

== Descendents ==

To create a new project page, enclose your project name in a double set of brackets. Details for a project format may be [[ Project_Page_Template_and_Creation_Instructions | found here.]]

*[[Klahr - TED]]
*[[Perfetti - Read Write Integration]]
*[[Presson & MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]
*[[Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production]]
*[[Zhang & MacWhinney - Chinese Pinyin Learning]]
*[[Zhao & MacWhinney - English Article Usage]]
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]
*[[Fostering fluency in second language learning | de Jong, Halderman & Perfetti - Fostering fluency in second language learning]]
*[[McLaren_-_The_Assistance_Dilemma_And_Discovery_Learning | McLaren - The Assistance Dilemma and Discovery Learning]]
*[[Wylie - Intelligent Writing Tutor]]
*[[REAP_main | Eskenazi - REAP]]
*[[Roll - Productive Failure in a Chemistry Virtual Lab]]

[[Cognitive Factors Monthly Meeting Notes]]

=== References ===
* Borek, A., McLaren, B.M., Karabinos, M., & Yaron, D. (2009). How Much Assistance is Helpful to Students in Discovery Learning? In U. Cress, V. Dimitrova, & M. Specht (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines (EC-TEL 2009), LNCS 5794, September/October 2009, Nice, France. (pp. 391-404). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-07-13T12:44:58Z

Ndjong:

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
|
| Study 8: October - December 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 350
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 825 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (July 2011) Paper about study 1 is published; paper about study 4 is under review; papers about studies 2 and 6 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription and coding of studies 7 and 8 is in progress. Analysis of studies 5 and 6 is in progress.
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Note: Detailed findings were presented at AAAL 2011 and will be reported in De Jong and Vercellotti (forthcoming).

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

(Frog and Turtle consisted of six pictures selected from wordless storybooks by Mayer, 1967, 1971)

(All other pictures were six-picture stories from Heaton, 1965)

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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.

== Descendants ==
[[Fluency Summer Intern Project | Fluency Summer Intern Project 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-07-13T12:40:40Z

Ndjong:

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Note: Detailed findings were presented at AAAL 2011 and will be reported in De Jong and Vercellotti (forthcoming).

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

(Frog and Turtle consisted of six pictures selected from wordless storybooks by Mayer, 1967, 1971)

(All other pictures were six-picture stories from Heaton, 1965)

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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.

== Descendants ==
[[Fluency Summer Intern Project | Fluency Summer Intern Project 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-07-13T12:39:45Z

Ndjong: /* Publications */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Note: Detailed findings were presented at AAAL 2011 and will be reported in De Jong and Vercellotti (forthcoming).

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

(Frog and Turtle consisted of six pictures selected from wordless storybooks by Mayer, 1967, 1971)

(All other pictures were six-picture stories from Heaton, 1965)

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-07-13T12:34:22Z

Ndjong: /* Publications */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Note: Detailed findings were presented at AAAL 2011 and will be reported in De Jong and Vercellotti (forthcoming).

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

(Frog and Turtle consisted of six pictures selected from wordless storybooks by Mayer, 1967, 1971)

(All other pictures were six-picture stories from Heaton, 1965)

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning, 61'', 533-568.

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-07-13T12:33:01Z

Ndjong: /* Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Note: Detailed findings were presented at AAAL 2011 and will be reported in De Jong and Vercellotti (forthcoming).

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

(Frog and Turtle consisted of six pictures selected from wordless storybooks by Mayer, 1967, 1971)

(All other pictures were six-picture stories from Heaton, 1965)

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-07-13T12:31:38Z

Ndjong: /* Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger
(Frog and Turtle consisted of six pictures selected from wordless storybooks by Mayer, 1967, 1971)
(All other pictures were six-picture stories from Heaton, 1965)

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-07-13T12:23:49Z

Ndjong: /* Descendants */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2011]] -- Anthony Brohan

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-05-12T12:51:21Z

Ndjong: /* PSLC-related publications and presentations */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. ''Language Learning'', ''61'', 533-568.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2011-03-22T14:11:32Z

Ndjong:

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-03-22T14:08:45Z

Ndjong: /* PSLC-related publications and presentations */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'' Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

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

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-03-22T14:08:05Z

Ndjong: /* PSLC-related publications and presentations */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

Warren, M. (2011). The role of repeated grammatical structures in second language fluency. ''Paper presented at McGill's Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates.'', Montreal, QC, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

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

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-02-11T19:47:32Z

Ndjong: /* PSLC-related publications and presentations */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

De Jong, N. & Vercellotti, M.L. (2011). Norming picture story prompts for second language production research: Fluency, linguistic items, and speakers’ perception. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference.'' Chicago, IL, March 2011.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (submitted). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language oral fluency.

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

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2011-02-11T19:43:50Z

Ndjong: /* DataShop */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

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

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].
Transcripts and audio files will be available through the TalkBank database.

Cognitive Factors

2011-02-11T19:43:09Z

Ndjong: /* Descendents */

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2010-11-11T16:43:35Z

Ndjong:

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

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

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

==DataShop==
Pretest and posttest data of Study 4 is available in [https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=186 Datashop].

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2010-10-18T08:23:20Z

Ndjong: /* PSLC-related publications and presentations */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

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

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2010). How does fluency training in the ESL classroom affect language complexity? ''Poster presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'', Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L.K. (2010). Vocabulary and grammatical knowledge contribute differentially to second language oral fluency. ''Paper presented at the Third Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference.'' Boston, MA, March 2010.

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table'', Washington, D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2010-08-31T13:12:42Z

Ndjong:

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcripts of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

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

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington'', D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2010-08-30T13:52:27Z

Ndjong:

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcriptions of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5, 6, and 7 is in progress. Study 8 is about the start (October 2010).
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

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

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington'', D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-12T14:56:02Z

Ndjong: /* Abstract */

== Abstract ==

[[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning#Study_1:_Repetition.2C_proceduralization_and_L2_fluency|De Jong & Perfetti (in press)]] showed that high-intermediate ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics. This study investigated whether repetition of the monologues had a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures.

Twenty-four high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s were assigned to two conditions (Repetition, No Repetition). They performed three training sessions, and a pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test. Two verbs (''buy'', ''find'') and two grammatical structures (auxiliary - AUX; infinitive - INF) were selected for analysis. An additional group of high repeaters was analyzed.

Results showed that the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group. The High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition, and they increased INF use at the post-test.

In conclusion, the 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

== Background and significance ==

[[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning#Study_1:_Repetition.2C_proceduralization_and_L2_fluency|De Jong & Perfetti (in press)]] showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:Fluency SI10-graphs.gif|600px|Results]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

=== Notes ===
* Frequency data was limited in the pre- and post-test analysis, since students spoke for only two minutes each, compared to nine minutes total in the 4/3/2 sessions.
* Effects may have been topic-driven . The topics in the 4/3/2 task may have elicited use of certain words or structures that were not elicited by the topics in the pre- and post-test.

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-12T14:55:45Z

Ndjong: /* Background and significance */

== Abstract ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that high-intermediate ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics. This study investigated whether repetition of the monologues had a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures.

Twenty-four high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s were assigned to two conditions (Repetition, No Repetition). They performed three training sessions, and a pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test. Two verbs (''buy'', ''find'') and two grammatical structures (auxiliary - AUX; infinitive - INF) were selected for analysis. An additional group of high repeaters was analyzed.

Results showed that the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group. The High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition, and they increased INF use at the post-test.

In conclusion, the 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

== Background and significance ==

[[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning#Study_1:_Repetition.2C_proceduralization_and_L2_fluency|De Jong & Perfetti (in press)]] showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:Fluency SI10-graphs.gif|600px|Results]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

=== Notes ===
* Frequency data was limited in the pre- and post-test analysis, since students spoke for only two minutes each, compared to nine minutes total in the 4/3/2 sessions.
* Effects may have been topic-driven . The topics in the 4/3/2 task may have elicited use of certain words or structures that were not elicited by the topics in the pre- and post-test.

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-12T14:53:45Z

Ndjong: /* Abstract */

== Abstract ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that high-intermediate ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics. This study investigated whether repetition of the monologues had a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures.

Twenty-four high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s were assigned to two conditions (Repetition, No Repetition). They performed three training sessions, and a pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test. Two verbs (''buy'', ''find'') and two grammatical structures (auxiliary - AUX; infinitive - INF) were selected for analysis. An additional group of high repeaters was analyzed.

Results showed that the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group. The High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition, and they increased INF use at the post-test.

In conclusion, the 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

== Background and significance ==

[[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|De Jong & Perfetti (in press)]] showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:Fluency SI10-graphs.gif|600px|Results]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

=== Notes ===
* Frequency data was limited in the pre- and post-test analysis, since students spoke for only two minutes each, compared to nine minutes total in the 4/3/2 sessions.
* Effects may have been topic-driven . The topics in the 4/3/2 task may have elicited use of certain words or structures that were not elicited by the topics in the pre- and post-test.

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-12T14:45:00Z

Ndjong: /* Findings */

== Abstract ==

'''abstract to be added'''

== Background and significance ==

[[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|De Jong & Perfetti (in press)]] showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:Fluency SI10-graphs.gif|600px|Results]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

=== Notes ===
* Frequency data was limited in the pre- and post-test analysis, since students spoke for only two minutes each, compared to nine minutes total in the 4/3/2 sessions.
* Effects may have been topic-driven . The topics in the 4/3/2 task may have elicited use of certain words or structures that were not elicited by the topics in the pre- and post-test.

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-12T14:44:20Z

Ndjong: /* Findings */

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-12T14:42:51Z

Ndjong: /* Findings */

== Abstract ==

'''abstract to be added'''

== Background and significance ==

[[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|De Jong & Perfetti (in press)]] showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:Fluency SI10-graphs.gif|Results]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

=== Notes ===
* Frequency data was limited in the pre- and post-test analysis, since students spoke for only two minutes each, compared to nine minutes total in the 4/3/2 sessions.
* Effects may have been topic-driven . The topics in the 4/3/2 task may have elicited use of certain words or structures that were not elicited by the topics in the pre- and post-test.

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

File:Fluency SI10-graphs.gif

2010-08-12T14:40:56Z

Ndjong: Fluency project - Summer intern 2010 graphs

Fluency project - Summer intern 2010 graphs

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:56:16Z

Ndjong: /* Background and significance */

== Abstract ==

'''abstract to be added'''

== Background and significance ==

[[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|De Jong & Perfetti (in press)]] showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

'''Graphs to be added'''

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

=== Notes ===
* Frequency data was limited in the pre- and post-test analysis, since students spoke for only two minutes each, compared to nine minutes total in the 4/3/2 sessions.
* Effects may have been topic-driven . The topics in the 4/3/2 task may have elicited use of certain words or structures that were not elicited by the topics in the pre- and post-test.

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:54:42Z

Ndjong: /* Explanation */

== Abstract ==

'''abstract to be added'''

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

'''Graphs to be added'''

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

=== Notes ===
* Frequency data was limited in the pre- and post-test analysis, since students spoke for only two minutes each, compared to nine minutes total in the 4/3/2 sessions.
* Effects may have been topic-driven . The topics in the 4/3/2 task may have elicited use of certain words or structures that were not elicited by the topics in the pre- and post-test.

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:52:44Z

Ndjong: /* Abstract */

== Abstract ==

'''abstract to be added'''

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

'''Graphs to be added'''

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:52:15Z

Ndjong: /* Further information */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

'''Graphs to be added'''

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from Northeastern University (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam. With thanks to Jon-Michel Seman for his contributions to data coding.

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:50:38Z

Ndjong: /* Findings */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

'''Graphs to be added'''

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:49:40Z

Ndjong: /* Method */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

=== Participants ===
24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:49:14Z

Ndjong: /* Research questions */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research question ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:49:03Z

Ndjong: /* Research questions */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research questions ==

* Does repetition of a monologue have a long-term effect on the use of grammatical structures in intermediate ESL learners?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:41:52Z

Ndjong: /* Background and significance */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the “4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research questions ==

* Do students in the repetition condition repeat words in the same grammatical structures? Do they use these words with the structures more than the students in the no-repetition condition?

* Does the repetition of these words and their grammatical structures lead to increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in a post-test?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:41:17Z

Ndjong: /* Hypotheses */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the“4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research questions ==

* Do students in the repetition condition repeat words in the same grammatical structures? Do they use these words with the structures more than the students in the no-repetition condition?

* Does the repetition of these words and their grammatical structures lead to increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in a post-test?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* Students in the Repetition condition repeat words across deliveries in the same grammatical structures, and use these words with the structures more than the students in the No Repetition condition.

* Students who repeat these words and their grammatical structures also show increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in the post-test.

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:38:45Z

Ndjong: /* Explanation */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the“4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research questions ==

* Do students in the repetition condition repeat words in the same grammatical structures? Do they use these words with the structures more than the students in the no-repetition condition?

* Does the repetition of these words and their grammatical structures lead to increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in a post-test?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* ...

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

The 4/3/2 task with repetition may increase the use of the same grammatical structures with repeated words, yielding more practice of the structure. With repetition, high repeaters may have abstracted the structure and used it with different lexical items in the post-test.

=== Future Analysis ===
* Temporal fluency measures (pause data) around the grammatical structures
* Accuracy of grammatical structures in pre- and post-test
* Analyze additional grammatical structures

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:37:17Z

Ndjong: /* Findings */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the“4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research questions ==

* Do students in the repetition condition repeat words in the same grammatical structures? Do they use these words with the structures more than the students in the no-repetition condition?

* Does the repetition of these words and their grammatical structures lead to increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in a post-test?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* ...

== Findings ==
* In the 4/3/2 task, the High Repetition group repeated ''buy'' and ''find'' with the grammatical structures more than the No Repetition group.
* High Repetition group also used the structures with other verbs more often than No Repetition
* High Repetition increased INF use at the post-test.

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:34:46Z

Ndjong: /* Independent variables */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the“4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research questions ==

* Do students in the repetition condition repeat words in the same grammatical structures? Do they use these words with the structures more than the students in the no-repetition condition?

* Does the repetition of these words and their grammatical structures lead to increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in a post-test?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition
* Time: Pre-test, post-test

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* ...

== Findings ==
* ...

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:34:26Z

Ndjong:

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the“4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research questions ==

* Do students in the repetition condition repeat words in the same grammatical structures? Do they use these words with the structures more than the students in the no-repetition condition?

* Does the repetition of these words and their grammatical structures lead to increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in a post-test?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition

== Dependent variables ==
* Frequency of use in 4/3/2 training session B
** INF
** AUX
* Frequency of use in tests
** INF
** AUX

== Hypotheses ==

* ...

== Findings ==
* ...

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:32:13Z

Ndjong: /* Independent variables */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the“4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research questions ==

* Do students in the repetition condition repeat words in the same grammatical structures? Do they use these words with the structures more than the students in the no-repetition condition?

* Does the repetition of these words and their grammatical structures lead to increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in a post-test?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* Training condition / Frequency of use: Repetition, No Repetition, High Repetition

== Dependent variables ==
* ...
**...

== Hypotheses ==

* ...

== Findings ==
* ...

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:30:26Z

Ndjong: /* Method */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

De Jong & Perfetti (in press) showed that ESL students who repeated a speech on the same topic in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes (the“4/3/2 task”) had greater gains in oral fluency on a post-test compared to students who gave their speeches on three different topics.

There was significant lexical overlap across retellings for the students who repeated the same topic, but the lexical overlap did not transfer to the post-tests. Since fluency gains cannot be attributed to faster lexical access of these specific vocabulary words, it is possible that the repetition of grammatical contexts in which the repeated words occurred is driving these fluency gains.

Oral fluency depends primarily on the proceduralization of declarative linguistic knowledge (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Linguistic knowledge becomes proceduralized through repeated practice, such that language knowledge is accessed automatically from long-term memory (Towell et al., 1996). From the constructionist perspective, specific lexical items become associated with certain grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002) With frequent use, these structures become abstract representations in the speaker’s mind and can generalize to other lexical items (Bybee, 2005).

== Research questions ==

* Do students in the repetition condition repeat words in the same grammatical structures? Do they use these words with the structures more than the students in the no-repetition condition?

* Does the repetition of these words and their grammatical structures lead to increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in a post-test?

== Method ==

24 high-intermediate adult ESL students with mixed L1s

=== Training ===
* Repetition (Rep; n = 15): spoke about shopping 3 times
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) AUX (n = 7)
** High-Repetition (High-Rep) INF (n = 6)
* No-Repetition (No-Rep) (n = 9): spoke about shopping, cell phones, television

=== Tests ===
2-minute pre-test and post-test speech on different topics

=== Selection of Words and Structures ===

Selected common grammatical structures around verbs repeated across deliveries in training session B. Focused analysis to two verbs and their two most common structures:

* ''Buy'' (topic related), ''Find'' (not topic related)
* Auxiliary Structure (AUX): Auxiliary + buy/find
* Infinitive Structure (INF): Verb + to + buy/find

== Independent variables ==

* ...

== Dependent variables ==
* ...
**...

== Hypotheses ==

* ...

== Findings ==
* ...

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:19:48Z

Ndjong: /* Background and significance */

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T18:16:14Z

Ndjong: /* Research question */

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

== Research questions ==

* Do students in the repetition condition repeat words in the same grammatical structures? Do they use these words with the structures more than the students in the no-repetition condition?

* Does the repetition of these words and their grammatical structures lead to increased use of the abstract grammatical structure in a post-test?

== Method ==

== Independent variables ==

* ...

== Dependent variables ==
* ...
**...

== Hypotheses ==

* ...

== Findings ==
* ...

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010

2010-08-05T14:29:28Z

Ndjong: New page: == Abstract == == Background and significance == == Research question == == Method == == Independent variables == * ... == Dependent variables == * ... **... == Hypotheses == *...

== Abstract ==

== Background and significance ==

== Research question ==

== Method ==

== Independent variables ==

* ...

== Dependent variables ==
* ...
**...

== Hypotheses ==

* ...

== Findings ==
* ...

[[Image:filename.gif|caption]]

== Explanation ==

== Further information ==

The data preparation and analysis of this part of the project has been performed by Mariah Warren from ... (summer intern in June-July 2010), under supervision of Mary Lou Vercellotti and Dr. Laura Halderman from the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nel de Jong from the Free University in Amsterdam

This internship was part of the project [[Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning|Fostering fluency in second language learning]] by Nel de Jong, Laura Halderman, and Charles Perfetti.

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2010-08-05T14:27:03Z

Ndjong: /* Descendants */

{| 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, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
|-
! 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 Vercellotti
|-
! 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
|-
|
| Study 6: October - December 2009
|-
|
| Study 7: Februari - March 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]], Speaking courses (levels 3, 4, 5)
|-
! Number of participants
| 300
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 800 hours
|-
! Datashop
| Audio files and transcriptions of Studies 1 through 4 are available
|-
! Current status
| (December 2009) Paper about study 1 was accepted for publication; Papers about studies 2 and 4 are in preparation. Many results have been presented at conferences.
Transcription of Studies 5 and 6 is in progress.
|}

== Abstract==
[[Image:Vercellotti-DeJong GURT09 English L2 Verb Complements.gif|thumb|Verb Complement Errors (GURT09)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_AB-visit_Sp09.gif|thumb|Speech Repetition and Fluency Development (Advisory Board Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_iSLC_Sp09.gif|thumb|Elicited Imitation (iSLC Spring 2009)]] [[Image:Fluency_DeJong-et-al_IA_Sp09.gif|thumb|4/3/2 procedure (Industrial Affiliates Spring 2009)]]

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.

(Posters presented in Spring 2009 are shown on the right. Click on the thumb images to see the larger images.)

== 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?
=== Study 6 - pilot for studies 7 and 8 ===
* What prompts will be most appropriate for studies 7 and 8 (to test the effect of time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity)?
=== Study 7 ===
* What is the effect of increasing time pressure on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in immediately repeated speeches?
=== Study 8 ===
* What is the long-term effect of increasing time pressure on 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 ==
=== Fluency, accuracy, and complexity ===
* 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)

=== Transfer ===
* ''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]].
* 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 4 ===
* Study 4 a: 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]].

=== Study 6 ===
* This is an exploratory pilot study to test instructions and prompts for a new study, which will focus on the effect of time pressure on fluency and fluency developement (cf. Study 4a). The new speaking prompts will be picture stories, in order to create "pushed output" and to increase comparability of performance across students.

=== Study 7 ===
This is a pilot study for Study 8, to examine the effect of time pressure on repeated and non-repeated story retellings. If a difference between the two groups is found, Study 8 will investigate the longer-term effects of time pressure.
* 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 lower fluency in the short term (but higher fluency in the longer-term; see Study 8).

=== Study 8 ===
This is a partial replication of Study 4, with tighter control over variables such as the content of the speeches, and with larger group sizes.
* 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]]).

=== Robust learning ===
* ''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 ==

=== Study 1: Repetition, proceduralization and L2 fluency ===
[[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session1.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session2.JPG|thumb]] [[Image:FluencyStudy1_SPR-Session3.JPG|thumb]]

''Fluency during the 4/3/2 task''

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.

''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

''Conclusion''

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).

=== Study 2: Formulaic sequences ===

[[Image:FormSeq-per-speech for-wiki.jpg|thumb]]

A pretraining of ten formulaic sequences led to an increase in their use during the 4/3/2 procedure. However, students often used the sequences incorrectly, and some students used them more than others. There was very little transfer to other speaking tasks.
The use of formulaic sequences had a mixed effect on fluency, in that it led to longer fluent runs (higher fluency) but also longer pauses (lower fluency). The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
Interestingly, after the pretraining students used more formulaic sequences that were not trained, as compared to the pretest and the students who had not received the pretraining. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of the existence and usefulness of formulaic sequences. These sequences with used with high accuracy.
Overall, it seems that the use of formulaic sequences was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on fluency. The form errors suggest that the students had learned formulaic sequences at the word level, and did not store and retrieve them as chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002).

=== Study 3: Shadowing and formulaic sequences ===
Data transcribed and coded. Analyses in progress.

=== Study 4: The role of vocabulary and grammar in L2 fluency (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

Several tests were used to assess students' linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar): Immediate Picture Naming, Delayed Picture Naming, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and Elicited Imitation. Performance on these tests was mostly as predicted, e.g., in terms of pre/posttest effects and frequency effects, as shown by the following findings.

''Breadth of productive vocabulary: Picture Naming accuracy''

Accuracy improved from pretest (74.2%) to posttest (85.7%), and was higher on the 1-1000 frequency band (85.7%) compared to the 2001-3000 frequency band (74.2%). There was a greater difference between the frequency bands in the Immediate naming condition compared to the Delayed naming condition. Therefore, naming lower-frequency words seems to be more difficult under time pressure (Immediate naming) than under no time pressure (Delayed naming).

''Retrieval speed of vocabulary: Picture Naming response time''

The Delayed naming condition was significant faster (1.046 seconds) compared to the Immediate naming condition (1.794 seconds). Only in the Delayed condition did reaction times improve from pretest (1.303 seconds) to posttest (0.670 seconds). These findings suggest that changes occurred over the course of the semester for the Delayed condition only. This may be due to improvements in articulation rate rather than lexical retrieval since lexical retrieval is executed prior to the cue to name. If improvements in lexical retrieval had occurred, there should have been a reduction in reaction time at the posttest for the immediate condition since immediate naming includes lexical retrieval and articulation rate.

''Vocabulary depth and productive use: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale''

Depth of knowledge for nouns was less affected by frequency than verbs. However, for high-frequency verbs, depth of knowledge was similar to that of nouns. These findings suggest that extra experience or enhanced instruction may be necessary for ESL students to acquire rich representations of low-frequency verbs. The scores for most categories (all nouns and high and mid frequency verbs) were on average around 4 ("I know this word. It means: ..."), which indicates that the students had good receptive depth of knowledge of these words, but were just short of productive knowledge. It seems therefore that these words were ready to be brought into productive use, but most were note in productive use yet, even the 2-3K words.

''Productive grammatical ability: Elicited Imitation''

"Grammatical ability" was tested with a range of forms and structures, morphosyntactic as well as syntactic, and less to more complex (earlier to later acquired). Elicited Imitation accuracy was marginally significantly higher on the posttest (50%) compared to the pretest (45%).

There were different patterns of performance across structures for the correct stimuli compared to the pattern observed for the incorrect stimuli. For correct stimuli, Relative Clauses and Plurals had among the best performance. However, when the stimuli were incorrect, subjects infrequently corrected them leading to poorer performance than expected given the high accuracy on the correct stimuli trials. Other structures like Regular Past Tense and Verb Complements were unaffected by the accuracy of the stimulus, showing no difference between the two conditions. The remaining structures (Embedded Questions, Indefinite Articles, Modals and Third Person –s) showed significantly better performance for the correct compared to the incorrect condition; however, performance on these structures relative to other structures was similar across accuracy conditions. On average students clearly had some knowledge of the grammatical items tested, because they were able to correctly repeat most of the correct stimuli. However, scores were fairly low, well below the 90% that is often used as a criterion for acquisition. Also, performance was strongly affected by ungrammatical stimuli, which shows that the students’ knowledge or processing of the grammatical items was variable. This poor performance was found both for grammatical forms and structures that are typically late acquired (e.g., third person –s, embedded questions) and relatively early acquired (e.g., noun plurals, regular past)

For relative clauses and plurals (and perhaps some other forms), grammatically correct and incorrect forms appear to be seen as two acceptable alternatives, as indicated by the large difference between grammatically correct and incorrect stimuli. For these items, the low scores for incorrect stimuli were almost complementary to high scores for correct stimuli: 70-30%, and 70-15%).

''Linguistic knowledge and oral fluency''

The relationship between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar) and temporal measures of oral fluency was examined:

'''Pretest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability and deeper vocabulary knowledge spoke with longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates. In addition, students with a greater breadth of vocabulary used longer pauses and filled less time with speech. This finding is surprising. It is possible that students with larger vocabularies tried to use more words and more infrequent words, which led them to speak with lower fluency. This deserves further investigation. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

'''Posttest'''

Students with greater grammatical ability spoke with higher articulation rates. Students with a greater breadth of vocabulary knowledge used shorter pauses and filled more time with speech. This finding was expected, but opposite to the pretest. Here, it seems that students with larger vocabularies were able to find words more easily, leading to higher fluency. Finally, students whose lexical retrieval was faster were able to produce more syllables per minute of speech.

Overall, grammatical ability seems to lead to higher articulation rate. Vocabulary depth is related to longer fluent runs and higher articulation rates, whereas findings for vocabulary breadth are variable, leading to longer or shorter pauses and more or less time filled with speech. Faster lexical retrieval is associated with a higher number of syllabes per minute of speech.

''Gains in linguistic knowledge and gains in oral fluency''

To be analyzed

=== Study 5: Priming vocabulary and grammar for fluent production ===
Data transcribed. Coding in progress.

=== Study 6: Piloting picture story prompts (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) ===

''Native speakers''

Native-speaker data were examined for seven stories:
Frog, Picnic, Race, Rude Driver, Shopper, Turtle, Tiger

'''Evaluations by speakers'''

Clarity of the pictures and story lines, and recognizability of the characters was rated well for all stories, but lower for Frog and Turtle. Students reported that most stories contained sufficient information to talk about, but Shopper consistently scored low on this point. Shopper scored low on enjoyment/interest, while Tiger scored high (despite the Tiger being killed). All other stories got medium scores on enjoyment/interest, with some variability. Only Tiger had consistently low ratings for the statement “The pictures showed things that might happen in my country”.

''Non-native speakers''

Non-native speaker data for five picture stories were examined:
Frog, Race, Rude Driver, Turtle, Tiger (Picnic and Shopper were dropped)

'''Amount of speech elicited'''

The amount of speech elicited was roughly similar for all five stories. Most students were able to produce close to four minutes of speech. Only with Turtle, a number of students had trouble filling 180 seconds.

In the main study, we will reduce the time available for speaking, from 4/3/2 minutes to 3/2.25/1.5 (180/135/90 sec.), so that there will be some time pressure for everyone.

'''Evaluations by students'''

Rude Driver, Race, and Tiger got the best ratings for clarity, interest, and plausibility. The ending of the Tiger story was evaluated negatively by some students. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board. Frog and Turtle received lower ratings across the board; the image quality of these two stories was slightly lower, and the coherence of the panels may have been less because they were selected from a longer story.

All picture stories had a tight narrative structure. Most picture stories had a complex storyline (foreground and background information), except Tiger. The storyline for Frog can be considered slightly less complex. (Cf. the task features investigated by Foster & Tavakoli, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008.)

== Explanation ==
This project initially took part in the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The studies in this cluster concerned the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The general hypothesis was 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 was investigated. Practice with the basic skills of using vocabulary and grammar was expected to increase [[fluency]]. This would be the case in the Repetition condition, where students had the opportunity to re-use the words, formulaic sequences and grammar in subsequent recordings. In Study 2, students were encouraged to use formulaic sequences that had been taught prior to the fluency training sessions. In Study 3 it was investigated whether shadowing promoted the use of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. All three studies took place in an [[in vivo experiment|in vivo]] setting.

The project is currently participating in the [[Cognitive Factors]] thrust.

== 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. (to appear). ''Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization.''

=== Peer-reviewed presentations ===

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M., ''The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom.'' Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I prefer go”: English L2 verb complement errors.'' Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March 2009.

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., ''Oral fluency training in ESL''. Talk given at the Pittsburgh Science of Learning (PSLC) monthly meeting, July 20, 2009.

De Jong, N., ''Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency.'' Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center, April 24, 2009.

Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N., ''“I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task.'' Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N., ''The study of oral fluency development in ESL''. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY, March 2008.

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 2007]] -- Kara Schultz

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2008]] -- Megan Ross

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2009]] -- Maya Randolph

[[Fluency Summer Intern Project 2010]] -- Mariah Warren

[[Explicit and implicit knowledge of infinitival and gerundival verb complements in L2 speech]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

Nation, I.S.P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. ''System'', ''17'', 377-384.
* Studied the 4/3/2 task. Did not distinguish between effect of speech repetition and time pressure.

Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in native speakers of English. See also Tavakoli and Foster (2008) for non-native-speaker data.

Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The Language Contact Profile. ''Studes in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 349-356.
* Developed a questionnaire about out-of-class language contact. Used in Study 2 and 3.

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.
* Used the Language Contact Profile questionnaire. Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad and immersion.

Mizera, G. J. (2006). ''Working memory and L2 oral fluency''. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
* Includes an investigation of native speaker ratings of oral fluency.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 173-199.
* Studied fluency development as a result of study abroad.

Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. ''Applied Linguistics'', ''17'', 84-119.
* Argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge shows up in second language speech as longer fluent runs with stable or improving pause length and phonation/time ratio.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
* Studied the effect of narrative structure and storyline complexity on fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical diversity in non-native speakers of English. See also Foster and Tavakoli (2009) for native-speaker data.

== PSLC-related publications and presentations ==
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Images available at top of page

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

De Jong, N. & Halderman, L. (2009). The role of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second-language oral fluency: A correlational study. ''Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI'', October 2009.

De Jong, N. (2009). Pre-training formulaic sequences and its effect on oral fluency. ''Talk given at the SLA lab meeting, CUNY Graduate Center'', April 24, 2009.

De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K., & Ross, M. (2009). The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. ''Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009'', Denver, CO, March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I prefer go”: English L2 Verb Complement Errors. ''Poster presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington'', D.C., March 2009.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Vercellotti, M.L. & De Jong, N. (2009). “I always dessert cake to diet”: Elicited Imitation as an L2 task. ''Poster presented at the Second Annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference'', Seattle, WA, February 2009.

De Jong, N. (2008). The study of oral fluency development in ESL. ''Presentation given at the Colloquium on Teaching and Learning World Languages, Queens College of CUNY'', March 2008.

De Jong, N. (2008). Oral fluency development in a second language. ''Presentation given at the Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition research group at the University of Amsterdam'', January 2008.

De Jong, N., (2007). Approaches to the study of second language acquisition. ''Guest lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center'', December 2007.

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

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

De Jong, N., (2006) Developing oral fluency with the 4/3/2 task. ''Presentation given at the Multimedia Showcase'', University of Pittsburgh, September 2006.

==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

[[Image:Fluency screenshot-picture-story-prompts.jpg|800px]]

Screenshot of sample picture story prompt