Theory Wiki - User contributions [en]

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2007-08-04T04:38:27Z

Schultz: /* Descendants */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! Project title
| Fostering fluency in second language learning:
Testing two types of instruction
|-
! PI
| De Jong (postdoc)
|-
! Co-PI
| Perfetti (faculty)
|-
! Others with > 160 hours
| Claire Siskin
|-
! Study start dates
| September 2006, January 2007, February 2007
|-
! Study end dates
| November 2006, February 2007, March 2007
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]]
|-
! Number of participants
| 120
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 320 hours
|-
! Datashop?
| Expected date 8/15
|}

== Abstract==
Many studies have investigated the effect of exposure to language on [[fluency]]. It has been established, for instance, that [[fluency]] increases after a period of immersion or study abroad (Freed et al., 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). Nevertheless, only very 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. It was not investigated, however, whether this transferred to new speeches, which is what we will do in this project. Another task that may increase [[fluency]] is shadowing, in which student talk (and read) along with a recording of a short speech by a native speaker. Shadowing should increase the feature strength of formulaic sequences, resulting in faster access to them in subsequent production tasks. Native-like locations of pauses may also be acquired.

In Study 1 we will investigate what characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by the 4/3/2 procedure. Measures include 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 will test transfer to a different topic. In Study 2 we will investigate whether a pretraining of formulaic sequences further enhances [[fluency]] (e.g., ''the point is that'', ''what I’m saying is that'', and ''and so on''). If students can use these sequences fast and effortlessly, this frees up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] which can then be used to construct sentences. The effect will be that there will be fewer and shorter pauses, and/or that sentences will be more complex. In Study 3, it will be investigated whether shadowing leads to increased use of formulaic sequences ([[chunking]]) and native-like pauses in subsequent production tasks.

== 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 2 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 will be 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.

== 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.

Whereas Study 1 focuses on a general effect of the 4/3/2 procedure on [[fluency]] development, Studies 2 and 3 focus on specific aspects of the training. Study 2 investigates how a pretraining of a set of formulaic sequences affects performance during and after the 4/3/2 procedure. Study 3 investigates whether the presence of the same set of formulaic sequences leads to increased use of those sequences in later speaking tasks, and whether such an increase affects [[fluency]] measures.

== Dependent variables ==
* Temporal measures of [[fluency]]:
** Articulation rate: number of syllables per second
** Pauses:
***mean length of fluent runs between pauses
***mean length of pauses
***phonation/time ratio
***number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses
** Formulaic sequences: number of appropriate formulaic sequences repeated from training
* Accuracy: morphosyntactic accuracy (subject-verb agreement, tense errors, definite/indefinite articles; see Mizera, 2006: 71)
* Complexity: number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses (cf. Nation, 1989)

* ''Near transfer, immediate, [[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)]]".

== Independent variables ==
* 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.

== Hypotheses ==
* Study 1: It is hypothesized that repetition of a short speech (independent variable) under increasing time 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|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|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, which may lead to overall more fluent performance, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, the training of formulaic sequences may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]].
* Study 2: Students at different proficiency levels may benefit in different ways from the 4/3/2 training. At lower proficiency levels, repetition may facilitate the use of particular words and grammar, leading to more instances of correct usage of vocabulary, morphosyntax and syntax. At higher proficiency levels, on the other hand, repetition may lead to a greater number of reformulations resulting in higher complexity.
* Study 3: It is hypothesized that shadowing a speech that contains formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Since effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, performance may become more fluent overall, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, shadowing may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]]. In addition, shadowing a text with target-language pausing patterns is expected to lead to a more native-like pausing pattern in subsequent spontaneous speech, mainly in terms of position (dependent variables: interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses).

* ''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 2, the students in the experimental condition first receive a pretraining of a number of formulaic sequences. It will be tested whether their [[fluency]], accuracy and syntactic complexity increases more during subsequent training, than of students who do not receive this pre-training.

== Findings ==
Data collection for Study 1 was completed in November, 2006. Data are currently being collected for Studies 2 and 3 (Spring, 2007).

Preliminary results of Study 1 show that, 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 bee 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=10) !! colspan="3" | Repetition (n=9)
|-
! align="center" |   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed
|-
! align="center" |   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest2
|-
! align="left" | Length of fluent runs (in syllables)
| align="center" | 4.26 || align="center" | 4.05 || align="center" | 4.26 || align="center" | 4.26 || align="center" | 4.97 || align="center" | 4.75
|-
! align="left" | Pause length (in sec.) *
| align="center" | 1.12 || align="center" | 1.11 || align="center" | '''.99''' || align="center" | 1.19 || align="center" | '''0.95''' || align="center" | 1.01
|-
! align="left" | Phonation/time ratio *
| align="center" | 0.57 || align="center" | 0.55 || align="center" | 0.56 || align="center" | 0.56 || align="center" | '''0.62''' || align="center" | 0.60
|-
! align="left" | Syllables per minute
| align="center" | 197 || align="center" | 194 || align="center" | '''204''' || align="center" | 192 || align="center" | 191 || align="center" | '''199'''
|}

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

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

== Further information ==

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

In June 2007 the executive committee approved our letter of intent, 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. We will submit a full project plan on August 1, 2007.

'''Peer-reviewed presentations'''

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

'''Other presentations'''

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]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

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

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

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 275-301.

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

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

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2007-08-04T04:35:54Z

Schultz: /* Descendants */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! Project title
| Fostering fluency in second language learning:
Testing two types of instruction
|-
! PI
| De Jong (postdoc)
|-
! Co-PI
| Perfetti (faculty)
|-
! Others with > 160 hours
| Claire Siskin
|-
! Study start dates
| September 2006, January 2007, February 2007
|-
! Study end dates
| November 2006, February 2007, March 2007
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]]
|-
! Number of participants
| 120
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 320 hours
|-
! Datashop?
| Expected date 8/15
|}

== Abstract==
Many studies have investigated the effect of exposure to language on [[fluency]]. It has been established, for instance, that [[fluency]] increases after a period of immersion or study abroad (Freed et al., 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). Nevertheless, only very 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. It was not investigated, however, whether this transferred to new speeches, which is what we will do in this project. Another task that may increase [[fluency]] is shadowing, in which student talk (and read) along with a recording of a short speech by a native speaker. Shadowing should increase the feature strength of formulaic sequences, resulting in faster access to them in subsequent production tasks. Native-like locations of pauses may also be acquired.

In Study 1 we will investigate what characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by the 4/3/2 procedure. Measures include 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 will test transfer to a different topic. In Study 2 we will investigate whether a pretraining of formulaic sequences further enhances [[fluency]] (e.g., ''the point is that'', ''what I’m saying is that'', and ''and so on''). If students can use these sequences fast and effortlessly, this frees up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] which can then be used to construct sentences. The effect will be that there will be fewer and shorter pauses, and/or that sentences will be more complex. In Study 3, it will be investigated whether shadowing leads to increased use of formulaic sequences ([[chunking]]) and native-like pauses in subsequent production tasks.

== 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 2 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 will be 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.

== 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.

Whereas Study 1 focuses on a general effect of the 4/3/2 procedure on [[fluency]] development, Studies 2 and 3 focus on specific aspects of the training. Study 2 investigates how a pretraining of a set of formulaic sequences affects performance during and after the 4/3/2 procedure. Study 3 investigates whether the presence of the same set of formulaic sequences leads to increased use of those sequences in later speaking tasks, and whether such an increase affects [[fluency]] measures.

== Dependent variables ==
* Temporal measures of [[fluency]]:
** Articulation rate: number of syllables per second
** Pauses:
***mean length of fluent runs between pauses
***mean length of pauses
***phonation/time ratio
***number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses
** Formulaic sequences: number of appropriate formulaic sequences repeated from training
* Accuracy: morphosyntactic accuracy (subject-verb agreement, tense errors, definite/indefinite articles; see Mizera, 2006: 71)
* Complexity: number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses (cf. Nation, 1989)

* ''Near transfer, immediate, [[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)]]".

== Independent variables ==
* 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.

== Hypotheses ==
* Study 1: It is hypothesized that repetition of a short speech (independent variable) under increasing time 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|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|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, which may lead to overall more fluent performance, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, the training of formulaic sequences may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]].
* Study 2: Students at different proficiency levels may benefit in different ways from the 4/3/2 training. At lower proficiency levels, repetition may facilitate the use of particular words and grammar, leading to more instances of correct usage of vocabulary, morphosyntax and syntax. At higher proficiency levels, on the other hand, repetition may lead to a greater number of reformulations resulting in higher complexity.
* Study 3: It is hypothesized that shadowing a speech that contains formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Since effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, performance may become more fluent overall, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, shadowing may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]]. In addition, shadowing a text with target-language pausing patterns is expected to lead to a more native-like pausing pattern in subsequent spontaneous speech, mainly in terms of position (dependent variables: interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses).

* ''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 2, the students in the experimental condition first receive a pretraining of a number of formulaic sequences. It will be tested whether their [[fluency]], accuracy and syntactic complexity increases more during subsequent training, than of students who do not receive this pre-training.

== Findings ==
Data collection for Study 1 was completed in November, 2006. Data are currently being collected for Studies 2 and 3 (Spring, 2007).

Preliminary results of Study 1 show that, 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 bee 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=10) !! colspan="3" | Repetition (n=9)
|-
! align="center" |   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed
|-
! align="center" |   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest2
|-
! align="left" | Length of fluent runs (in syllables)
| align="center" | 4.26 || align="center" | 4.05 || align="center" | 4.26 || align="center" | 4.26 || align="center" | 4.97 || align="center" | 4.75
|-
! align="left" | Pause length (in sec.) *
| align="center" | 1.12 || align="center" | 1.11 || align="center" | '''.99''' || align="center" | 1.19 || align="center" | '''0.95''' || align="center" | 1.01
|-
! align="left" | Phonation/time ratio *
| align="center" | 0.57 || align="center" | 0.55 || align="center" | 0.56 || align="center" | 0.56 || align="center" | '''0.62''' || align="center" | 0.60
|-
! align="left" | Syllables per minute
| align="center" | 197 || align="center" | 194 || align="center" | '''204''' || align="center" | 192 || align="center" | 191 || align="center" | '''199'''
|}

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

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

== Further information ==

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

In June 2007 the executive committee approved our letter of intent, 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. We will submit a full project plan on August 1, 2007.

'''Peer-reviewed presentations'''

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

'''Other presentations'''

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

== Descendants ==
[[The Effectiveness of Repetition in Second Language Fluency Training]]

== Annotated bibliography ==

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

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

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. ''Studies in Second Language Acquisition'', ''26'', 275-301.

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

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

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-08-04T04:32:02Z

Schultz:

== Purpose of the Project ==

The goal of this project is to gain further insight into the development of fluency, accuracy and complexity during fluency training, and the retention and transfer of that development to a delayed posttest. The fluency training is the 4/3/2 task, developed by Nation (1989), in which students prepare a four minute talk and repeat it twice: first in three minutes, then in two minutes.

== Research Questions ==

1. Does the repetition of the second and third telling of the subject's speech, in which new semantic information is not required, result in changes in fluency, morphosyntactic accuracy, and complexity?

2. What types of changes, if any, occur? What causes these changes?

3. Are the changes retained for atleast one week?

== Data Collection ==

Data was collected under two different conditions. The first condition was that students would repeat their speech, developed from a prompt concerning a singular topic, on three occasions. The second condition was that students would be asked to address three different topics. Data consists of recordings from the 4/3/2 task, as well as from pre- and posttests. Articulation rate, morphology, syntax, mean length of fluent runs, and mean length of pauses will all be examined.

== Data preparation ==

Recordings from the pre- and posttests were transcribed and analyzed for fluency before. In the present project, recordings from the training itself were transcribed and coded for morphosyntactic accuracy, parts of speech, and repetitions and reformulations.

''Tools Used to Analyze Data''

; PRAAT: PRAAT is a computer program that allows multiple tier transcriptions to be displayed along with sound wave files. For the purposes of this project, PRAAT was used to transcribe the 4/3/2 recordings. A spectrogram was referenced while listening to the sound files in order to determine appropriate time intervals of pauses and speech utterances.

; CHAT: CHAT is a transcription format in which the transcribed data can be coded. The transcribed data was marked for part of speech, a range of morphological and syntactic errors, and repetitions using CHAT.

''Example of CHAT format''

'''163:''' the [*] soccer is [*] very famous: .

%mor: det|the [*] n|soccer v|be&3S^v:aux|be&3S [*] adv:int|very
adj|famous .

%pos: det|the [*] n|soccer v|be&3S [*] adv:int|very adj|famous .

%err: $DET:ART:SUB:ZERO; $DET:ART:LOS:A

'''163:''' game all [/] all over the world .

%mor: v|game^n|game qn|all prep|over^adv:loc|over det|the n|world .

%pos: n|game qn|all adv:loc|over det|the n|world .

The %mor tier codes morphemic segments by type and part of speech. If a word could
possibly function as more than one part of speech, options are separated by a ^ symbol.

The %pos tier codes morphemic segments by type and part of speech as well. However,
all options have been eliminated besides the correct type and part of speech for each word.

; CLAN: CLAN performs automatic analyses of the transcriptions. CLAN processed the CHAT files and produced the probable part of speech for each word in the transcript. Where there was still uncertainty concerning the part of speech, options were given and a choice was made by the coder. An error coding file developed by the principal investigator, Nel de Jong, was referenced for lines of the transcript containing error. From this file, CLAN produced a hierarchy of the part of speech codes in order to determine which form of the part of speech should have been used versus the form used in error by the particpant. CLAN can also perform other processes aside from morphosyntactic analysis. Such processes include the generation of a word frequency list and a lexicon of all words used in the transcript.

''Error coding''

Errors which were coded include:

* Morphological errors such as:
** inflection
** noun (number)
** pronoun (number, gender, loss, addition, substitution)
** determiner (article substitution, absence, addition)
** verb (tense, addition, loss, substitution, subject-verb agreement)
** relative pronoun (loss, addition, substitution)
** conjunction (loss, addition, substitution)

*Repetitions were marked by: [/] which represents an exact repetition, [//] which represents retracing with correction, and [///] which represents retracing with reformulation.

* Syntactical errors will eventually be addressed, but not at this moment.

== Results ==
''Lexical overlap''. To verify whether students tried to express the same meaning in the retellings, we calculated the lexical overlap between the first and second recording, and between the second and third recording in each fluency training session. Lexical overlap is the number of words that were used in both recordings, divided by the total number of words that were used in the two recordings. It was indeed higher for students who repeated their speech than for students who talked about three different topics (.15-.31 for no repetition vs. .35-.59 for repetition).

''Fluency''. Fluency developed across the three recordings in that fluent runs became longer, while pauses length and phonation/time ratio were stable or improved. In the first 4/3/2 training session, all students whose fluency improved from the the pretest to the posttest also showed fluency development in training. On the other hand, two out of three students whose fluency did not develop on the pre- and posttests also did not develop fluency during training. In the second training session, no fluency development took place for any students, while in the third session, fluency developed for all six students.
Fluency development was also tracked by the number of repetitions per minute (e.g., ''it's ... it's imp-... important'' has two repetitions). This number decreased across retellings in most cases, which indicates that students had less difficulty retrieving words and structures while they were speaking.

''Accuracy and complexity''. Accuracy was measured by the target-like use of subject-verb agreement (third person -s). This measure remained mostly stable, but was fairly high, over .75 for most recordings, which indicates there may have been a ceiling effect. In addition, the number of self-corrections was low, on average between 0.4 and 1.1. per minute, and remained stable across retellings, which indicates that students did not monitor their speech extensively.

''Lexical variety''. As a measure for lexical variety we used the Mean Segmental Type-Token Ratio, the mean type-token ratio for all segments of 40 words in a recording. Lexical variety did not increase in the retellings, but remained mostly stable. It did, however, increase from pretest to immediate posttest for those students whose fluency improved as well.

In summary, it seems that fluency increased during the retellings in the 4/3/2 procedure, mostly in terms of temporal measures. Accuracy for subject-verb agreement was high, and lexical variety was mostly stable. Further analyses of other, more problematic morphosyntactic structures may still reveal an increase in accuracy. Most students seemed to improve the fluency of their speeches during training, but only some of them were able to transfer this gain to the posttest. Future studies will need to address why this would be the case (e.g., motivation, focus on accuracy or complexity instead of fluency). In addition, analyses of data from more students may reveal whether this is a general pattern or occurred only for few students.

== More information ==
For more information about the fluency project, see [[Fostering fluency in second language learning]].

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-07-17T14:43:49Z

Schultz: /* Tools Used to Analyze Data */

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-07-17T14:37:45Z

Schultz: /* Tools Used to Analyze Data */

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-07-09T14:19:26Z

Schultz:

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-07-09T14:19:01Z

Schultz: /* Error Coding */

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-07-09T14:14:09Z

Schultz:

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-07-09T13:54:32Z

Schultz:

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-07-09T13:47:06Z

Schultz: /* Tools Used to Analyze Data */

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-06-26T21:59:15Z

Schultz: /* Data Collection */

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-06-26T21:28:02Z

Schultz: /* Summary of Analyses */

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-06-26T21:27:13Z

Schultz: /* Summary of Analyses */

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-06-26T20:56:58Z

Schultz: /* Purpose of the Project */

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-06-26T15:05:46Z

Schultz:

== Purpose of the Project ==

The goal of the project is to gain further insight into the development of fluency, accuracy and complexity during fluency training, and the retention and transfer of that development to a delayed posttest. The fluency training is the 4/3/2 task, developed by Nation (1989), in which students prepare a four minute talk and repeat it twice: first in three minutes, then in two minutes.

== Research Questions ==

1. Does the repetition of the second and third telling of the subject's speech, in which new semantic information is not required, result in changes in fluency, morphosyntactic accuracy, and complexity?

2. What types of changes, if any, occur? What causes these changes?

3. Are the changes retained for atleast one week?

== Summary of Analyses ==

Data was collected under two different conditions. The first condition was that students would repeat their speech, developed from a prompt concerning a singular topic, on three occasions. The second condition was that students would be asked to address three different topics. Data consists of recordings from the 4/3/2 task, as well as from pre- and posttests. Articulation rate, morphology, syntax, mean length of utterance, and mean length of pauses will all be examined.

== Tools Used to Analyze Data ==

; PRAAT: PRAAT is a computer program that allows multiple tier transcriptions to be displayed along with sound wave files. For the purposes of this project, PRAAT was used to transcribe the 4/3/2 recordings. A spectrogram was referenced while listening to the sound files in order to determine appropriate time intervals of pauses and speech utterances.

; CHAT: CHAT is a computer program in which the transcribed data can be coded. The transcribed data was marked for part of speech errors and repetitions using the CHAT program.

; CLAN: CLAN performs automatic analyses of the transcriptions. CLAN processed the CHAT files and produced the probable part of speech for each word in the transcript. Where there was still uncertainty concerning the part of speech, options were given and a choice was made by the coder. An error coding file developed by the principal investigator, Nel de Jong, was referenced for lines of the transcript containing error. From this file, CLAN produced a hierarchy of the part of speech codes in order to determine which form of the part of speech should have been used versus the form used in error by the particpant. CLAN can also perform other processes aside from morphosyntactic analysis. Such processes include the generation of a word frequency list and a lexicon of all words used in the transcript.

Fluency Summer Intern Project

2007-06-05T19:26:46Z

Schultz:

Fostering fluency in second language learning

2007-06-05T18:46:30Z

Schultz:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! Project title
| Fostering fluency in second language learning:
Testing two types of instruction
|-
! PI
| De Jong (postdoc)
|-
! Co-PI
| Perfetti (faculty)
|-
! Others with > 160 hours
| Claire Siskin
|-
! Study start dates
| September 2006, January 2007, February 2007
|-
! Study end dates
| November 2006, February 2007, March 2007
|-
! Learnlab
| [[ESL]]
|-
! Number of participants
| 120
|-
! Total Participant Hours
| 320 hours
|-
! Datashop?
| Expected date 8/15
|}

== Abstract==
Many studies have investigated the effect of exposure to language on [[fluency]]. It has been established, for instance, that [[fluency]] increases after a period of immersion or study abroad (Freed et al., 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). Nevertheless, only very 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. It was not investigated, however, whether this transferred to new speeches, which is what we will do in this project. Another task that may increase [[fluency]] is shadowing, in which student talk (and read) along with a recording of a short speech by a native speaker. Shadowing should increase the feature strength of formulaic sequences, resulting in faster access to them in subsequent production tasks. Native-like locations of pauses may also be acquired.

In Study 1 we will investigate what characteristics of [[fluency]] are affected by the 4/3/2 procedure. Measures include 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 will test transfer to a different topic. In Study 2 we will investigate whether a pretraining of formulaic sequences further enhances [[fluency]] (e.g., ''the point is that'', ''what I’m saying is that'', and ''and so on''). If students can use these sequences fast and effortlessly, this frees up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] which can then be used to construct sentences. The effect will be that there will be fewer and shorter pauses, and/or that sentences will be more complex. In Study 3, it will be investigated whether shadowing leads to increased use of formulaic sequences ([[chunking]]) and native-like pauses in subsequent production tasks.

== 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 2 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 will be 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.

== 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.

Whereas Study 1 focuses on a general effect of the 4/3/2 procedure on [[fluency]] development, Studies 2 and 3 focus on specific aspects of the training. Study 2 investigates how a pretraining of a set of formulaic sequences affects performance during and after the 4/3/2 procedure. Study 3 investigates whether the presence of the same set of formulaic sequences leads to increased use of those sequences in later speaking tasks, and whether such an increase affects [[fluency]] measures.

== Dependent variables ==
* Temporal measures of [[fluency]]:
** Articulation rate: number of syllables per second
** Pauses:
***mean length of fluent runs between pauses
***mean length of pauses
***phonation/time ratio
***number of interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses
** Formulaic sequences: number of appropriate formulaic sequences repeated from training
* Accuracy: morphosyntactic accuracy (subject-verb agreement, tense errors, definite/indefinite articles; see Mizera, 2006: 71)
* Complexity: number of embedded finite and non-finite clauses (cf. Nation, 1989)

* ''Near transfer, immediate, [[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)]]".

== Independent variables ==
* 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.

== Hypotheses ==
* Study 1: It is hypothesized that repetition of a short speech (independent variable) under increasing time 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|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|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, which may lead to overall more fluent performance, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, the training of formulaic sequences may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]].
* Study 2: Students at different proficiency levels may benefit in different ways from the 4/3/2 training. At lower proficiency levels, repetition may facilitate the use of particular words and grammar, leading to more instances of correct usage of vocabulary, morphosyntax and syntax. At higher proficiency levels, on the other hand, repetition may lead to a greater number of reformulations resulting in higher complexity.
* Study 3: It is hypothesized that shadowing a speech that contains formulaic sequences (independent variable) leads to an increase in their use in subsequent spontaneous speech (dependent variable). Since effortless use of these sequences will free up [[cognitive headroom|headroom]] for sentence structure planning, performance may become more fluent overall, in terms of speed and pausing patterns (dependent variables). Thus, shadowing may accelerate [[accelerated future learning|future learning]]. In addition, shadowing a text with target-language pausing patterns is expected to lead to a more native-like pausing pattern in subsequent spontaneous speech, mainly in terms of position (dependent variables: interphrasal and intraphrasal pauses).

* ''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 2, the students in the experimental condition first receive a pretraining of a number of formulaic sequences. It will be tested whether their [[fluency]], accuracy and syntactic complexity increases more during subsequent training, than of students who do not receive this pre-training.

== Findings ==
Data collection for Study 1 was completed in November, 2006. Data are currently being collected for Studies 2 and 3 (Spring, 2007).

Preliminary results of Study 1 show that, 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 bee 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=10) !! colspan="3" | Repetition (n=9)
|-
! align="center" |   !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed !! Pretest !! Immediate !! Delayed
|-
! align="center" |   !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest !!   !! Posttest !! Posttest2
|-
! align="left" | Length of fluent runs (in syllables)
| align="center" | 4.26 || align="center" | 4.05 || align="center" | 4.26 || align="center" | 4.26 || align="center" | 4.97 || align="center" | 4.75
|-
! align="left" | Pause length (in sec.) *
| align="center" | 1.12 || align="center" | 1.11 || align="center" | '''.99''' || align="center" | 1.19 || align="center" | '''0.95''' || align="center" | 1.01
|-
! align="left" | Phonation/time ratio *
| align="center" | 0.57 || align="center" | 0.55 || align="center" | 0.56 || align="center" | 0.56 || align="center" | '''0.62''' || align="center" | 0.60
|-
! align="left" | Syllables per minute
| align="center" | 197 || align="center" | 194 || align="center" | '''204''' || align="center" | 192 || align="center" | 191 || align="center" | '''199'''
|}

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

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

== Annotated bibliography ==

== Descendents ==

-

== Further information ==

In June and July 2007, a summer intern will work on the project to do a multiple case study of four to six students from study 1. She will answer 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)?
The intern’s project will be a first step towards more in-depth analyses of the data of all three studies in the ESL fluency project.

In May 2007 we will submit a letter of intent proposing follow-up studies that investigate the effect of time pressure and the role of specific knowledge components (vocabulary, grammar) in oral fluency.

'''Peer-reviewed presentations'''

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

'''Other presentations'''

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]]