Cover not available
Article published In:
AILA Review
Vol. 36:1 (2023) ► pp.112–133

The development of EFL students’ speech fluency

A phase transition investigation based on a complex dynamic systems perspective

ORCID logo | Politeknik Negeri Padang

This study investigated phase transitions in EFL students’ speech fluency development using a complex dynamic systems perspective. Two students with different proficiency levels were selected from an intact speaking class. These students learned and practiced specific strategies to improve their speech fluency. Phase transitions were analyzed based on three criteria: sudden jumps, anomalous variance, and qualitative change in the attractor. Number of syllables was used as the speech fluency measure. The results suggest that only the higher-proficiency student underwent one phase transition. These findings imply that a short explicit fluency strategy training intervention could improve the speech fluency development of high-proficiency students in EFL classrooms. The results have implications for theory and pedagogical practice relating to EFL students’ speech fluency development.

Keywords: complex dynamic systems theory, phase transition, speech fluency, strategy training
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • CDST in second language (L2) research
  • Research method
    • Design
    • Participants
    • Task and procedure
    • Speech fluency
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • The results of the high proficiency student (HPS)
      • Sudden jump
      • Anomalous variance
      • Qualitative changes in the attractor
    • The results of the low proficiency student (LPS)
      • Sudden jump
      • Anomalous variance
      • Qualitative changes in the attractor
    • Changes in contents of the speech
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 24 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.22027.mar
References
Baba, K., & Nitta, R.
(2014) Phase transitions in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64 (1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F.
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M.
(2005) Students’ concurrent performance on tests of English language proficiency and academic achievement. In The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives (CSE Report 663, pp. 47–83). UCLA.Google Scholar
Diaz-Asper, M., Holmlund, T. B., Chandler, C., Diaz-Asper, C., Foltz, P. W., Cohen, A. S., & Elvevåg, B.
(2022) Using automated syllable counting to detect missing information in speech transcripts from clinical settings. Psychiatry Research, 315 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dong, J.
(2016) A dynamic systems theory approach to development of listening strategy use and listening performance. System, 63 1, 149–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, D. R.
(2019) Bifurcations, fractals, and non-linearity in second language development: A complex dynamic systems perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Buffalo.
Fogal, G. G.
(2020) Investigating variability in L2 development: Extending a complexity theory perspective on L2 writing studies and authorial voice. Applied linguistics, 41 (4), 575–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geveke, C. H., Steenbeek, H. W., Doornenbal, J. M., & Van Geert, P. L.
(2017) Attractor states in teaching and learning processes: A study of out-of-school science education. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 1, 299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, R.
(1993) Catastrophe theory for scientists and engineers. Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
Hepford, E. A.
(2017) Dynamic second language development: The interaction of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in a naturalistic learning context (Unpublished doctoral disseration). Temple University.
Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H.
(2016) A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (4), 741–756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jansen, B. R., & Van der Maas, H. L.
(2001) Evidence for the phase transition from Rule I to Rule II on the balance scale task. Developmental Review, 21 (4), 450–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelso, J. S.
(1995) Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. The MIT press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D.
(1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. D.
(2000) The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development. Child development, 71 (1), 36–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2015) Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65 (1), 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Individual differences and the ergodicity problem. Language Learning, 69 1, 184–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruhland, R., & Van Geert, P.
(1998) Jumping into syntax: Transitions in the development of closed class words. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16 (1), 65–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M.
(2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied linguistics, 31 (4), 532–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, W. A.
(2000) Change-point analysis: A powerful new tool for detecting changes. Taylor Enterprises.Google Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L.
(1994) A dynamic systems approach to the development of perception and action. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thom, R.
(1975) Structural stability and morphogenesis, trans. by D. H. Fowler. W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P.
(2007) Wobbles, humps and sudden jumps: A case study of continuity, discontinuity and variability in early language development. Infant and Child Development: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 16 (1), 7–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Geert, P.
(2008) The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (2), 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Geert, P., Steenbeek, H., & Kunnen, S.
(2012) Monte Carlo techniques: Statistical simulation for developmental data. In A dynamic systems approach to adolescent development (pp. 59–68). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Van Geert, P., & Van Dijk, M.
(2002) Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development, 25 (4), 340–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W.
(2011) A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., Chan, H. P., & Vahtrick, L.
(2017) Linguistic complexity in second language development: Variability and variation at advanced stages. Recherches en Didactique des Langues et des Cultures. Les Cahiers de l’Acedle, 14 (14–1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M.
(2008) Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (2), 214–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, H., & Lowie, W.
(2020) Dynamic paths of complexity and accuracy in second language speech: a longitudinal case study of Chinese learners. Applied linguistics, 41 (6), 855–877. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeeman, E. C.
(1976) Catastrophe theory. Scientific American, 234 (4), 65–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar