Abstract
This chapter explores how second language fluency can be developed through a focus on language automatization in a university-level English class. This study draws on empirical results indicating that automatization leads to fluency development in oral production because it compensates for limitations in short-term memory capa city by allowing direct retrieval from long-term memory (Wood, 2001). Formulaic language units were used because they are easily automatized through multiple repetitions and retrievals, and require little effort or attention to produce (Boers et al., 2006). However, in a number of EFL learner textbooks and teacher resource books, heavy emphasis is placed on free-production tasks, with less focus on formulaic language units, rehearsal, and repetition, indicating that the development of fluency is neglected in many EFL classrooms (Rossiter et al., 2010).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.
Bei, G. X. (2010). Re-examining relations among fluency, accuracy, complexity and lexis in L2 speaking. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2010.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Strengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and lexical oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261.
Boers, F., Piriz, A. M. P., Stegers, H., & Eyckmans, J. (2009). Does pictorial elucidation foster recollection of idioms? Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 367–382.
Bygate, M. (1999a). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3, 185–214.
Bygate, M. (1999b). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27(1), 33–48.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds), Language and Communication (pp. 2–27). New York: Longman.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches in second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Chambers, F. (1998). What do you mean by fluency? System, 25(4), 535–544.
Derwing, T. M. & Munro, M. J. (2001). What speaking rates do nonnative listeners prefer? Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 324–337.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2007). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 359–380.
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Language (pp. 79–114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Firth, A. (1988). Models of interaction: A contrastive analysis of advanced Danish learners’ modes of interaction in English. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.
Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh—Analyzing and Understanding Data (4th edn). London: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Housen, A. & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3, National Council of Teachers of English, Champaign, Ill.
Kadota, S. (2007). Shadoingu to ondoku no kagaku (Science on Shadowing and Reading Aloud). Tokyo: Cosmopia.
Kadota, S. (2009). Inputto wo autoputto ni ikani tunaguka (How you can link input to output effectively). The English Teachers’ Magazine, 57(12), 31–38.
Kanda English Proficiency Test (KEPT). (2005). The Kanda KEPT Committee. Chiba: Kanda University of International Studies.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387–417.
Linacre, J. M. (2006). A user’s guide to Winsteps: Rasch Model computer programs. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from: http://www.winsteps.com/winman/copyright.htm.
McCarthy, M. (2006). Explorations in Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. (2009). The course of study for upper secondary school. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/shotou/030301.htm.
Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M. (2001). Modeling perceptions of the accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech: The role of speaking rate. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 451–468.
Muranoi, H. (2006). Dainigengoshutokukaramita koukatekina eigogakusyuhou shidouhou (Effective English Learning and Teaching Methods Viewed from Second Language Acquisition Studies). Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 385–400.
Nation, I. S. P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17(3), 377–384.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). Teaching Speaking and Listening. Tokyo: Temple University, Japan.
Onoda, S. (2002). Effectiveness of communicative tasks in Media English learning. The Journal of the Japan Association of Current English Studies, 41, 15–31.
Onoda, S. (2010). Komyunikatibu apurochi wo ikasutameno jyugyou no dezain (Teaching ideas to effectively utilize communicative language teaching in the Japanese EFL context). In M. Suzuki, T. Takashi, & N. Yamagishi (Eds), JACET Tertiary Level English Education Improvement Committee (pp. 105–123). Tokyo: Shohakusha.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423–441.
Rossiter, M., Derwing, T., Manimtim, L., & Thompson, R. (2010). Oral fluency: The neglected component in the communicative language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(4), 583–606.
Schmitt, N. & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action — an introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences Acquisition, Processing, and Use (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmitt, N. & Underwood, G. (2004). Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self-paced reading task. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use (pp. 153–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schoonjans, E., Welcomme, A., Housen, A., Pierrard, M., Schoohere, E., & Jassens, S. (2010). The effect of learning context on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 performance and L2 proficiency. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2010.
Skehan, J. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 125–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tavakoli, P. & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, (pp. 239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writing, drawling, stretching and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 489–508.
Van Moere, A. (2006). Validity evidence in a university group oral test. Language Testing, 23(4), 411–440.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Language Learning. London: Longman.
Wood, D. (2001). In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach it? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 573–589.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Sakae Onoda
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Onoda, S. (2014). An Exploration of Effective Teaching Approaches for Enhancing the Oral Fluency of EFL Students. In: Muller, T., Adamson, J., Brown, P.S., Herder, S. (eds) Exploring EFL Fluency in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137449405_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137449405_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-49676-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-44940-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)