Cited by 98EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningPhonetics and Phonology ResearchSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Aspects of Fluency Across Assessed Levels of Speaking Proficiency

Open access
TAVAKOLI, PARVANEH, NAKATSUHARA, FUMIYO, HUNTER, ANN–MARIE·2020·The Modern Language Journal

Abstract

Recent research in second language acquisition suggests that a number of speed, breakdown, repair, and composite measures reliably assess fluency and predict proficiency. However, there is little research evidence to indicate which measures best characterize fluency at each assessed level of proficiency and which can consistently distinguish one level from the next. This study investigated fluency in 32 speakers’ performing 4 tasks of the British Council's Aptis Speaking Test, which were awarded 4 different levels of proficiency (Common European Framework of Reference for Language levels A2–C1). Using PRAAT, the performances were analyzed for various aspects of utterance fluency across different levels of proficiency. The results suggest that speed and composite measures consistently distinguish fluency from the lowest to upper‐intermediate levels (A2–B2), and many breakdown measures differentiate between the lowest level (A2) and the rest of the proficiency groups, with a few differentiating between lower (A2, B1) and higher levels (B2, C1). The varied use of repair measures at different levels suggests that a more complex process is at play. The findings imply that a detailed micro‐analysis of fluency offers a more reliable understanding of the construct and its relationship with assessment of proficiency.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/modl.12620

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
TAVAKOLI, P., NAKATSUHARA, F., & HUNTER, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • University of Bedfordshire (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
  • TAVAKOLI, PARVANEH
  • NAKATSUHARA, FUMIYO
  • HUNTER, ANN–MARIE
Venue
The Modern Language Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-25
Volume
104
Issue
1
Pages
169-191
ISSN
  • 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-4781
OpenAlex
W2964357634
Cited by
98
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
51.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Modern Language Journal (publishedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Bedfordshire Repository (University of Bedfordshire) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
The British Council (AR-G/2017/7)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
speech fluency, speaking proficiency, fluency assessment, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, speech rate, repair, second language speaking

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