Final speech fluency workshop

PROMOTING SPEECH FLUENCY:

A CLASSROOM PERSPECTIVE

Joan McCormack; Colin Campbell and Parvaneh Tavakoli

International Study and Language Institute

Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics

OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION

What is speech/oral fluency?

What does research in this area suggest?

Our recent research at University of Reading

How to promote fluency in second/modern foreign

language classroom

Special thanks to the following departments for

funding the research & this workshop

CeLM (Centre for Literacy & Multilingualism)

ISLI (International Study & Language Institute)

DELAL (Department of English Language & Applied Linguistics)

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION

In small groups, discuss the following questions:

What is speech fluency?

Why is it important?

Can speech fluency be taught in classroom?

15 minutes discussion + 10 minutes feedback

WHY SPEECH FLUENCY (MFL)

Speaking fluently is a key goal in language learning for

many teachers and learners

extracts from Modern Foreign Languages GCSE subject

content (January 2015)

develop ability to communicate confidently and

coherently with native speakers in speech

express and develop thoughts and ideas spontaneously

and fluently

develop language strategies, including repair strategies

WHY SPEECH FLUENCY (CEFR)

Fluency is one of the five key components of speaking in CEFR

Extracts from Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

Ability to speak fluently in speaking and delivering presentations is a priority

Ability to interact with others with a degree of fluency and spontaneity

Two generic qualitative factors which determine the functional success of the learner/user are:

a) fluency, the ability to articulate, to keep going, and to cope when one lands in a dead end

b) propositional precision, the ability to formulate thoughts and propositions so as to make one’s meaning clear

RESEARCHING SPEECH FLUENCY

The word “fluency” in English

General meaning

Specific meaning

“Fluency might simply be the ability to talk of length with

few pauses; the ability to fill time with talk; the ability to

talk in coherent and semantically dense sentences; the

ability to have appropriate things to say in a wide range of

contexts; and the ability to be creative and imaginative in

the language use” (Fillmore, 1979, p. 51).

RESEARCHING SPEECH FLUENCY

Fillmore’s definition of L1 fluency

“Fluency might simply be the ability to talk of length

with few pauses; the ability to fill time with talk; the

ability to talk in coherent and semantically dense

sentences; the ability to have appropriate things to say

in a wide range of contexts; and the ability to be

creative and imaginative in the language use”

(Fillmore, 1979, p. 51).

FILLMORE’S DEFINITION OF L1 FLUENCY

Fillmore (1979)

Time filled with talk

Semantically-dense talk

Communicatively

appropriate

Use language creatively

& imaginatively

L1 Fluency

Not stopping many times to think what to

say or how to phrase it (grammar, vocab,

ect.).

e.g. Who

Ability to talk coherently, mastery of

semantic and syntactic resources.

e.g. Who

Having the right pragmatic and affective

language skills: Knowing how to say it.

e.g. Who

Having artistic wit, style and imagination

for a range of social situations and different

people

But does everyone have this ability?

Who would you nominate for this criterion?

DEFINING L2 SPEECH FLUENCY:

CEFR (p. 129): fluency is demonstrated when a

“speaker can express him/herself at length with a

natural, effortless, unhesitating flow. Pauses only to

reflect on precisely the right words to express his/her

thoughts or to find an appropriate example or

explanation.”

Segalowitz (2012: p. 240) “for most, the qualities that

make speech fluent include fast speech, and the

relative absence of undue hesitations, pausing,

repetition, and repairs.”

DEFINING L2 SPEECH FLUENCY

What does it mean

the efficiency of the operation of the cognitive

mechanisms underlying performance, e.g.

processing skills, declarative vs. procedural

knowledge, cognitive load (e.g. speaking under

time pressure); individual differences

The observable and measurable aspects of

fluency, e.g. speed, pausing and hesitation

the inferences listeners make about someone’s

cognitive fluency based on their perceptions of

how fluent the speaker is

Segalowitz (2010)

Cognitive fluency:

Underlying processes

Utterance fluency:

Observable features of

oral fluency

Perceived fluency:

Listeners’ perceptions

DEFINING & MEASURING L2 FLUENCY

Skehan (2003)

Breakdown fluency (or

how much silence is there)

Speed fluency (or how fast

speech is)

Repair fluency (or how

many interruptions)

Segalowitz (2010)

Cognitive fluency:

Utterance fluency:

Observable features of

oral fluency

Perceived fluency:

WHAT MAKES SPEECH DYSFLUENT Silence (breakdown):

number of unfilled pauses,

length of pauses (pauses of .25-.40 a second or longer),

Location of pauses (mid-clause vs. end-clause),

proportion of time spoken

Repair:

Number of false starts,

Number of reformulations,

Number of replacements,

Number of repetitions,

Number of hesitations

Slow-speed:

Mean length of run (mean number of syllables between two pauses)

speech rate (mean number of syllables per minute)

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW

Fluency develops in time as it needs automatization and

proceduralisation of rule use (DeKeyser, 2007; Freed, 2000)

Task design and/or task conditions have an impact on L2

fluency (Ellis & Yuan, 2004; Skehan & Foster, 1996; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008)

e.g. structured tasks elicit more fluent language

Individual styles (de Jong et al, 2012)

e.g. some speakers talk faster than others

Impact of first language

e.g. languages differ, to a small extent, in terms of certain aspects of

fluency, e.g. empty fillers such as err & ehmm

Learners may not pause more than native speakers; they

pause at wrong places (Tavakoli, 2011)

But can pedagogic intervention help improve learner fluency

over a limited period of time?

HOW TO IMPROVE FLUENCY

RECENT RESEARCH AT UNIVERSITY OF READING

Does instruction help improve learner fluency?

Instruction Strategy training

Awareness raising activities

practise

Students: 45 students enrolled on pre-sessional courses at university in the

UK (37 reported here)

B2 level(CEFR); placement was based on IELTS scores (or equivalent)

Context: EAP classes (16 hours per week)

Two groups: experimental and control

Tests: Language proficiency test before the experiment started

A monologue and a dialogue at the beginning of the experiment

Another monologue and a dialogue at the end of the period

OUR RESEARCH PROJECT

Research questions: Does awareness raising and strategy training have an impact

on the development of L2 speech fluency (of learners on an intensive EAP course in the target language context)? Impact on monologic performance

Impact on dialogic performance

Which aspects of fluency are more sensitive to this instruction?

Methodology A pretest-posttest design

A 4-week intervention

in class activities twice a week, each 15 minutes

and homework

Participants 45 students enrolled on presessional courses at university in

the UK (37 reported here)

B2 level(CEFR); placement was based on IELTS scores (or equivalent)

TASKS

Pre-test dialogic task:

1 minute planning and 3 minutes talk

Travelling alone or in a group

“You role is to persuade Student B that travelling alone in a foreign country is better than travelling in a group. Work with Student B, listen to his/her views and give reasons why travelling alone is better.”

Post-test dialogic task

1 minute planning and 3 minutes talk

Watching a film at home or in the cinema

“You role is to persuade Student B that going to the cinema to see a film is better than watching a film at home. Work with Student B, listen to his/her views and give reasons why watching a film at home is better.”

Pre-test monologic task:

1 minute planning and 1 minute

talk

“The last time you went/did

traditional shopping. T ell

us about this experience.”

Post-test monologic task:

1 minute planning and 1 minute

talk

“Your arrival in Reading –

tell us about your first days

in Reading and at the

University.”

THE TWO GROUPS AT TIME 1 AND TIME 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

CGT1

EGT1

0

50

100

150

200

250

CGT2

EGT2

TABLE 1: GAINS IN FLUENCY OF MONOLOGIC TASK

PERFORMANCE IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Fluency Measures Time 1 (M & SD) Time 2 (M & SD) t P η2

Mean Length of Run 6.86 (sd=2.79)

8.53 (sd=3.40)

2.63 .017* .18

Mean length of silent pauses .71 (sd=.18)

.68 (sd=.25)

.65 .53 .07

Phonation time ratio 74.15 (sd 7.25)

78.29 (sd 8.67)

2.64 .016* .11

Articulation rate 188.64 (sd=22.91)

217.73 (sd=18.10)

5.75 .001* .26

Speech rate 140.51 (sd=24.70)

168.59 (sd=24.99)

5.34 .001* .40

Mean number of pauses clause-internal

12.84 (sd=4.34)

12.95 (sd=5.57)

.09 .93 .05

Mean number of pauses clause-external

8.26 (sd=2.64)

8.21 (sd=2.39)

.07 .94 .06

Mean number of repair measures

7.42 (sd=4.50)

5.58 (sd=4.08)

1.84 .08 .11

Mean number of filled pauses 14.47 (sd=5.05)

14.84 (sd=6.18)

.33 .75 .07

N= 19; * significant at or lower than .025

MEAN LENGTH OF RUN

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M1 MLR M2 MLR

Ax

is T

itle

Length of run in

monologues

EXP Grp

CON Grp

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

D1 MLR D2 MLR

Ax

is T

itle

Length of run in

dialogues

SPEECH RATE

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

M1SPR M2SPR

Ax

is T

itle

Speech rate in

monologues

EXP Grp

CON Grp

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

D1SPR D2SPR

Ax

is T

itle

speech rate in dialogues

Series1

Series2

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Speech fluency improves even over a short period of time when students practise it in the target language context

Fluency-focused instruction helps improve a number of aspects of speech fluency

Speed and repair fluency improve more quickly

Pausing needs more time to develop (but there is scope for raising student awareness)

Teaching related implications

The next session

REFERENCES: de Jong, N., R. Groenhourt, et al. (2012). "L2 fluency: speaking style or proficiency?" Applied

Psycholinguistics 34(1): 1-21.

Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. Pespectives on fluency. H. Riggenbach. Ann Arbor, University

of Michigan Press: 43-61.

Freed, B. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? Perspectives on

fluency. H. Riggenbach. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press: 243-266.

Seifoori, Z. and Vahidi, Z. (2012). The impact of fluency strategy training

on Iranian EFL learners’ speech under online planning conditions. Language Awareness. 21(1):

101=112.

Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, Routledge.

Segalowitz, N. (2012). Second language fluency. The Routledge encyclopedia of second language

acquisition. P. Robinson. New York, Routledge.

Skehan, P. (2003). "Task-based instruction." Language Teaching 36: 1-14.

Skehan, P. (2014). “Processing perspectives on task performance”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tavakoli, P. (2004). Effects of task characteristics and conditions on L2 performance. Unpublished

Thesis: King’s College London, UK.

Tavakoli, P. (2011). "Pausing patterns: Differences between L2 learners and native speakers."

ELT Journal 65(1): 71-9.

Tavakoli, P. and P. Foster (2008). "Task design and second language performance: The effect of

narrative type on learner output." Language Learning 58(2): 439-473.Tavakoli,

P. and P. Skehan (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. Planning

and task performance in a second language. R. Ellis. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 239-277.

AND WHAT NEXT

We would like to interview you if you are available in the autumn term

Contact us if you have questions

Contact us if there is anything we can help you

We maybe able to help you, although we won’t guarantee we would have the resources or funding to do so

But we will consider sympathetically any request for help from you