CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 250EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningPhonetics and Phonology Research

Fluency Training in the ESL Classroom: An Experimental Study of Fluency Development and Proceduralization

Open access
de Jong, Nel, Perfetti, Charles A.·2011·Language Learning
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present study investigates the role of speech repetition in oral fluency development. Twenty‐four students enrolled in English‐as‐a‐second‐language classes performed three training sessions in which they recorded three speeches, of 4, 3, and 2 min, respectively. Some students spoke about the same topic three times, whereas others spoke about three different topics. It was found that fluency improved for both groups during training but was maintained on posttests only by the students who repeated their speeches. These students had used more words repeatedly across speeches, most of which were not specifically related to the topic. It is argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge represented a change in underlying cognitive mechanisms, resulting in improvements in observable fluency.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Accuracy in performance does not guarantee acquisition of fluency, but Assessment Events that provide timing data or assess accuracy in time-limited contexts would.

    “Accuracy in performance does not guarantee acquisition of fluency, but AEs that provide timing data or assess accuracy in time limited contexts would (cf., de Jong & Perfetti, 2011).”

    From The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning (2012) · cites this paper as de Jong & Perfetti, 2011

    The Measures of Fluency section distinguishes fluency from accuracy by assessing pauses, fluent runs, and other temporal measures; the Pretest/Posttest Data section uses those measures to assess fluency gains. The paper does not say that assessment events providing timing data, or assessing accuracy under time limits, would ensure acquisition of fluency. Its time-pressure task was a training activity combined with speech repetition, not evidence for that assessment claim. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Task repetition leads to changes in utterance fluency, reflected as speed, breakdown, and repair fluency.

    “task repetition leads to changes in utterance fluency, reflected as speed (e.g., articulation rate), breakdown (e.g., pauses), and repair fluency (e.g., repetitions).”

    From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as de Jong & Perfetti, 2011

    The Discussion reports improved fluency after speech-repetition training, and the results describe changes in pause measures. But the Articulation Rate section says training did not appear to increase speed. The Analyses section codes repetitions and corrections for vocabulary analysis, not as a reported repair-fluency outcome. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Constant time limit was imposed throughout because increasing time pressure can sometimes reduce the amount of repetition in subsequent performances, which may be considered as a less ideal condition for proceduralization.

    “Constant time limit was imposed throughout because increasing time pressure can sometimes reduce the amount of repetition in subsequent performances, which may be considered as a less ideal condition for proceduralization (e.g., de Jong & Perfetti, 2011;de Jong & Tillman, 2018).”

    From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as de Jong & Perfetti, 2011

    The discussion on p. 535 says speakers fitting repeated speeches into shorter time omitted details and changed grammatical constructions. The discussion on p. 537 says repeated practice strengthens production rules, supporting the rationale for preserving repetition. The paper does not establish that increasing time pressure makes proceduralization less likely; it reports evidence of proceduralization from its own 4/3/2 task, which uses progressively shorter limits. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In task-based language teaching and learning, repeating a speaking task facilitates fluency development.

    “In task-based language teaching and learning, the facilitative role of repeating a speaking task was found for fluency development.”

    From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as de Jong & Perfetti, 2011

  • Words and syntactic patterns that are primed and repeated across consecutive performances may facilitate L2 fluency development.

    “The words and syntactic patterns that are primed and repeated across consecutive performances may facilitate L2 fluency development (de Jong & Perfetti, 2011;de Jong & Tillman, 2018).”

    From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as de Jong & Perfetti, 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 5-24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  2. Maurice, K. (1983). The fluency workshop. TESOL Newsletter, 17(4), 29.
  3. Squire, L. R. (1987). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
ORCID
Perfetti, Charles A.
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01-20
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
533-568
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x
OpenAlex
W2136576070
Cited by
250
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
92.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Language Learning (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0354420)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
oral fluency, speech repetition, proceduralization, English as a second language, fluency training, speech recordings, vocabulary repetition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review