Connections between measured and assessed fluency in L2 peer interaction: a problem-solving perspective

Abstract

This article examines the connections between ratings and measures of second language (L2) fluency based on dialogue data, extending previous studies on L2 individual fluency. The links between fluency and strategic competence are studied from a problem-solving perspective. Fifteen raters’ assessments and comments of individual fluency, interactional fluency, and strategic competence based on six samples of L2 peer interaction were examined. Fluency measures corresponded to the rated dimensions. In a mixed-methods analysis, correlational analyses across the ratings and between the ratings and fluency measures were performed. The raters’ comments were analyzed qualitatively. The results demonstrated correlations between the ratings and measures of fluency for individual and interactional fluency, but not for strategic competence. The mean length of turn pauses correlated strongly with interactional fluency ratings. The raters’ comments revealed a multifaceted conceptualization of interactional fluency and strategic competence. The results have implications for L2 fluency measurement and assessment.

The interplay between speech fluency and gesture in L1 Finnish and L2 English task-based interactions

“…Regarding the distribution of fluencemes, they were found to be relatively similar across L1 and L2 interactions as well, again being potentially linked with the task-based nature of the interactions and advanced level of L2 proficiency. SPs were found to be the most frequent type in both L1 and L2 interactions, which is in line with previous L2 fluency research (e.g., [3,4,8]). In L2 interactions, FPs were the second most common type, while false starts were the second most common type in the L1 interactions.…”

“…The proportions for the other categories were relatively low. The fact that FPs formed a larger proportion of fluencemes in the L2 than in the L1 interactions, along with a similar tendency for prolongations and repetitions, could potentially be related to strategic uses of these features (e.g., [2,3]), but would require further analyses of individual speakers' profiles to confirm this.…”

“…The research assistants announced when 5 minutes had passed but did not otherwise intervene in the discussion. In both tasks, the participants received pictures of sixteen items (printed on an A4 paper) that they were asked to rank in the order of usefulness for a) survival on a desert island (see [3]) or b) walking to the mothership after a crash landing of their spaceship on the lighted side of the moon. The task instructions also specified that the participants should justify their choices and agree on the order of importance for all of the items.…”

“…To overcome these planning phases, learners have been found to use different kinds of strategies (or "fluencemes" [2]), which have traditionally been considered as disfluencies despite being multifunctional. While L2 speech fluency research has shown that silent pauses (SPs) are linked with L2 proficiency, less proficient speakers producing more SPs than more advanced speakers, other fluencemes, such as filled pauses (FPs; e.g., er, um in English; öö in Finnish), certain types of repairs (e.g., selfrepetitions and corrections), and prolongations (i.e., sound lengthenings) tend to be more prone to individual variation and less clearly linked with L2 proficiency (e.g., [3,4]).…”

Word searches and fluency during problem-solving tasks: a mixed-methods study of L1 Finnish and L2 English interaction

“…While fluency is a widely studied construct, it has mostly been studied quantitatively from an individual's perspective based on monologue speech data and temporal measurements related to speech rate and pausing. However, there has been recent interest to explore the construct in dialogue contexts (e.g., Sato 2014;Peltonen 2017aPeltonen , 2017bPeltonen , 2020. Fluency researchers have also begun to study how individual speaking style in the first language (L1) influences L2 fluency by comparing L1 and L2 speech fluency patterns (e.g., De Jong et al 2015;Peltonen 2018).…”