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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

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.

Overview

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

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Koponen M., 2000, Perspectives on fluency, 5
  2. Lynch T., 2001, Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, 141
  3. Maurice K., 1983, The fluency workshop, TESOL Newsletter, 17, 29
  4. Segalowitz N., 2000, Perspectives on fluency, 200
  5. Shafer D., 2006, Revolution: Software at the speed of thought
  6. Swain M., 1991, Foreign/second language pedagogy research, 234

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 246

Metadata

Authors
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
de Jong, Nel
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01-20
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
533-568
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
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
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