Startseite Effects of repeated practice on fluency and accuracy in picture description activity: implicit learning by frequency
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Effects of repeated practice on fluency and accuracy in picture description activity: implicit learning by frequency

  • Koichi Yamaoka EMAIL logo und Osamu Takeuchi ORCID logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 9. Juni 2025
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
Aus der Zeitschrift International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Abstract

Implicit knowledge is one of the major goals of second language learning. Implicit knowledge is useful because of its automatic nature. There is a possibility that task repetition provides an opportunity to obtain implicit knowledge of chunks through frequent encounters to the same patterns during the repetition. If this frequency is enhanced by practice, learning of implicit knowledge of chunks is expected to be facilitated. The present study adopted oral repetition of chunk combinations as chunk practice to realize high-frequency encounters with patterns of chunks. This chunk practice, combined with picture description activities, was administered to the treatment group of beginner-level learners of English, while the control group engaged in the activities without the chunk practice. The treatment group outperformed the control group in the outcome of accuracy of article. However, statistically significant differences were not confirmed between the groups in fluency and accuracy of verbs and prepositions. The effect on accuracy of article endured for at least one week in the delayed performance. Transfer was not confirmed because both groups reached similar levels of unrehearsed performance.

Keywords: fluency; accuracy; chunk patterns; picture description
Corresponding author: Koichi Yamaoka, 70299 Himeji Dokkyo University , 7-2-1, Kami-ono, Himeji City, Hyogo, 670-8524, Japan, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their sincere and deepest gratitude to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments and feedback, without which this paper would not have been materialized.

  1. Research ethics: The experiment was conducted with the approval of the ethics committee of the faculty that the first author was affiliated with (Approval No. 18-4).

  2. Author contributions: The authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Conflict of interest: All other authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Research funding: None declared.

  5. Data availability: The raw data can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.

Appendix
Figure A.1: Examples of pictures. (a) An example of main-activity pictures. (b) The unrehearsed picture.
Figure A.1:

Examples of pictures. (a) An example of main-activity pictures. (b) The unrehearsed picture.

Questionnaire

I. Likert-scale questionnaire

Treatment

  1. I repeated well.

  2. I repeated easily.

  3. I mimicked the pronunciation while I repeated it.

  4. I repeated as fast as possible.

  5. I tried to make no mistakes while I repeated.

  6. I paused within the sentences.

  7. I tried to remember while I repeated.

  8. I repeated with the content in mind

Activities

  1. I described the pictures easily.

  2. I recalled the words easily.

  3. I was thinking about grammar as I described the picture.

  4. English sentences came to my mind immediately.

  5. I described without errors in English.

II. Free-description questionnaire

Treatment

Please reflect on the following points.

  1. What you found hard to do or difficult, or what you found easy to do or done well

  2. What you paid attention to

  3. Did you find the practice useful for the picture description activities? Did you find anything else to comment?

Activities

Please reflect on the following points.

  1. What you found hard to do or difficult, or what you found easy to do or done well

  2. What you paid attention to

  3. Any other things you found

References

Ahmadian, Mohammad Javad. 2011. The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task? Language Learning Journal 39(3). 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2010.545239.Suche in Google Scholar

Ahmadian, Mohammad Javad & Mansoor Tavakoli. 2011. The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research 15(1). 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329.Suche in Google Scholar

Boers, Frank, June Eyckmans, Jenny Kappel, Hélène Stengers & Murielle Demecheleer. 2006. Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research 10(3). 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa.Suche in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2009. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.07) [Computer Program]. http://www.praat.org/.Suche in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Suche in Google Scholar

Bygate, Martin. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Martin Bygate, Peter Skehan & Merrill Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogic task: Second language learning, teaching and testing, 23–48. Harlow: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar

de Jong, Nivja H. & Hans R. Bosker. 2013. Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. In Robert Eklund (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th workshop on disfluency in spontaneous speech (DiSS) (TMH-QPSR) 54(1), 17–20. Stockholm: Universitetsservice US-AB.Suche in Google Scholar

de Jong, Nivja H. & Philip Tillman. 2018. Grammatical structures and oral fluency in immediate task repetition: Trigrams across repeated performances. In Martin Bygate (ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 43–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.02jonSuche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2001. Memory for language. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 33–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.004Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263102002024.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2003. Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Catherine J. Doughty & Michael H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, 63–104. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9780470756492.ch4Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2004. The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning 54(2). 227–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2005. At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 305–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226310505014x.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 141–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050096.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2006. Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics 27(2). 164–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2009. Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3). 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2020. Task-based language teaching for beginner-level young learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners 2(1). 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19005.ell.Suche in Google Scholar

Foster, Pauline & Peter Skehan. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(3). 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100015047.Suche in Google Scholar

Freed, Barbara F. 2000. Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? In Heidi Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, 243–266. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Gashan, Amani K. & Fahad M. Almohaisen. 2014. The effect of task repetition on fluency and accuracy of EFL Saudi female learners’ oral performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 5(3). 36–41.10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.3p.36Suche in Google Scholar

Goldman-Eisler, Frieda. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Han, Youngju & Rod Ellis. 1998. Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research 2(1). 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1191/136216898672061211.Suche in Google Scholar

Hilton, Heather. 2008. The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 fluency. Language Learning Journal 36(2). 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730802389983.Suche in Google Scholar

Housen, Alex & Folkert Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 416–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048.Suche in Google Scholar

Huizenga, Jann. 2000. Can you believe it? Stories and idioms from real life book 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin & Nicole Tracy-Ventura. 2013. The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System 41(3). 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005.Suche in Google Scholar

Kormos, Judit & Mariann Dénes. 2004. Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System 32(2). 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Lambert, Craig, Judit Kormos & Danny Minn. 2017. Task repetition and second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(1). 167–196. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263116000085.Suche in Google Scholar

Lennon, Paul. 1990. Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning 40(3). 387–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Loewen, Shawn. 2020. Introduction to instructed second language acquisition, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315616797Suche in Google Scholar

Manza, Louis & Arthur S. Reber. 1997. Representing artificial grammars: Transfer across stimulus forms and modalities. In Dianne C. Berry (ed.), How implicit is implicit learning? 73–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198523512.003.0004Suche in Google Scholar

Mehnert, Uta. 1998. The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20(1). 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263198001041.Suche in Google Scholar

Miller, George A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2). 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158.Suche in Google Scholar

Peltonen, Pauliina. 2017. Temporal fluency and problem-solving in interaction: An exploratory study of fluency resources in L2 dialogue. System 70. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.009.Suche in Google Scholar

Riazantseva, Anastasia. 2001. Second language proficiency and pausing: A study of Russian speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(4). 497–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226310100403x.Suche in Google Scholar

Riggenbach, Heidi. 1991. Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes 14(4). 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544795.Suche in Google Scholar

Segalowitz, Norman. 2010. Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203851357Suche in Google Scholar

Seger, Carol A. 1994. Implicit learning. Psychological Bulletin 115(2). 163–196. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.115.2.163.Suche in Google Scholar

Seidl, Jennifer. 2011. Grammar one, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Servan-Schreiber, Emile & John R. Anderson. 1990. Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16(4). 592–608. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.16.4.592.Suche in Google Scholar

Shin, Jeong-Ah & Kiel Christianson. 2012. Structural priming and second language learning. Language Learning 62(3). 931–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00657.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 2009. Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 510–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047.Suche in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 1997. Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1(3). 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302.Suche in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 1999. The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49(1). 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071.Suche in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter, Pauline Foster & Sabrina Shum. 2016. Ladders and snakes in second language fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 54(2). 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9992.Suche in Google Scholar

Strengers, Helene, Frank Boers, Alex Housen & June Eyckmans. 2010. Does ‘chunking’ foster chunk-uptake? In Sabine De Knop, Frank Boers & Antoon De Rycker (eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics, 99–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110245837.99Suche in Google Scholar

Szudarski, Paweł & Ronald Carter. 2016. The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 26(2). 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12092.Suche in Google Scholar

Tavakoli, Parvaneh. 2011. Pausing patterns: Differences between L2 learners and native speakers. ELT Journal 65(1). 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq020.Suche in Google Scholar

Tavakoli, Parvaneh. 2016. Fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance: Challenges in defining and measuring L2 fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 54(2). 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9994.Suche in Google Scholar

Tavakoli, Parvaneh, Colin Campbell & Joan McCormack. 2016. Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. Tesol Quarterly 50(2). 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.244.Suche in Google Scholar

Tavakoli, Parvaneh & Takumi Uchihara. 2020. To what extent are multiword sequences associated with oral fluency? Language Learning 70(2). 506–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12384.Suche in Google Scholar

Towell, Richard, Roger Hawkins & Nives Bazergui. 1996. The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics 17(1). 84–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.84.Suche in Google Scholar

Wang, Zhan. 2014. On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In Peter Skehan (ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance, 27–62. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.5.02wanSuche in Google Scholar

Yuan, Fangyuan & Rod Ellis. 2003. The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-01-05
Accepted: 2025-05-19
Published Online: 2025-06-09

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2024-0004
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
fluency; accuracy; chunk patterns; picture description
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 8.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2024-0004/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen