The development of EFL students’ speech fluency
A phase transition investigation based on a complex dynamic systems perspective
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.
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
References (32)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental
considerations in language testing: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dong, J. (2016). A
dynamic systems theory approach to development of listening strategy use and listening
performance. System,
63
1, 149–165. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gilmore, R. (1993). Catastrophe
theory for scientists and engineers. Courier Corporation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kelso, J. S. (1995). Dynamic
patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. The MIT press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The
input hypothesis: Issues and implications: Addison-Wesley Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewis, M. D. (2000). The
promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development. Child
development,
71
(1), 36–43. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability
and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language
Learning,
65
(1), 63–88. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2019). Individual
differences and the ergodicity problem. Language
Learning,
69
1, 184–206. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, W. A. (2000). Change-point
analysis: A powerful new tool for detecting changes. Taylor Enterprises.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A
dynamic systems approach to the development of perception and action. The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thom, R. (1975). Structural
stability and morphogenesis, trans. by D. H. Fowler. W. A. Benjamin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeeman, E. C. (1976). Catastrophe
theory. Scientific
American,
234
(4), 65–83. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Sariani, Sariani, Mutia El Khairat, Welsi Haslina & Baety Baetty
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.