Feature Article

Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills

Through Interactive Pair Presentations
With Small-Group Discussion
Sakae Onoda
Juntendo University
This article discusses the benefits of pedagogical strategies designed to enhance students’interactional skills in an undergraduate English teacher education course. It presents amodel of pair presentation with small-group discussion and shows the positive effects ofthis approach on students’ interactional skills based on their feedback as well as teacher
assessments. In this unique design, pre-service EFL teachers learn about teaching approaches
and their theoretical underpinnings, present the main points of a chapter in the textbook,and engage peers in small-group discussions, with participants interacting as they express
their interpretations, opinions, and learning experiences regarding specific aspects of thepresentation. In this study, an experimental group went through the above-mentioned
sequence of tasks over one academic term, while a control group also presented the main
points of a chapter in the textbook but followed this up with a teacher-led interactive session
designed to clarify participants’ understanding of key concepts by engaging them in small
group discussions. Results show that pair presentations with guided small-group discussion
raise participants’ intrinsic motivation for authentic interaction and facilitates collaborative
learning, in turn enhancing their oral fluency, a critical interactional skill. Limitations of thestudy, pedagogical implications, and options for future research are also discussed.

How undergraduate English teacher education can be improved given inherent
constraints has long been discussed in Japan. For example, Onoda, Miyashita,
and Yoshino (2017) noted that most undergraduates who complete an
English teacher education program can obtain a teaching license. Additionally,
Wakabayashi, Kosuge, and Kosuge (2016) reported that newly qualified teachers
hold preconceived views of teaching based on their own learning experience,
most likely influenced by grammar translation. Thus, pre-service English teachers
70Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89

may not be strongly motivated to acquire advanced English interactional skills.
Pre-service teachers’ lack of advanced English skills may also reflect Ministry
guidelines on the teaching of English (MEXT, 2009), which require them totake only two English teaching methodology courses, with a primary focus on
Japanese-language instruction and a limited focus on English skills (including
speaking and listening), for which instruction may (or may not) be delivered in
English. Additionally, they are required to study subjects related to pedagogy,
including counseling, educational psychology, and principles of education aspart of an already crowded curriculum (Sano, Saito, & Yoshida, 2016).
This requirement derives from a philosophy of teacher education whereby
teachers’ responsibilities include not only teaching their specialized subject but
also duties as homeroom teacher or club activity adviser. In brief, teachers musttake care of everything in their homeroom students’ lives as in a family unit
(Sarja, Nyman, Ito, & Jaatinen, 2017). This close relationship forms the core ofschool education in Japan. Consequently, the undergraduate teacher education
curriculum is not primarily geared toward improving the English skills of futureteachers (Sato, 2012; Onoda, Miyashita, & Yoshino, 2017).
This lack of advanced English skills also derives from the fact that many
university entrance exams do not test productive skills. Unless students acquire
these skills in university, even those who enroll in English teacher education
courses will not develop them adequately (Sato, 2012). Unsurprisingly, theEnglish skills of undergraduates in such courses in Japan lag behind those inother EFL settings (Sano et al., 2016). One example is the Teacher Education
Department at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland (personal communication,
Prof. Riikka Alanen, September 7, 2017; Kontoniemi & Salo, 2011). BothJapan and Finland demonstrate educational success, albeit differently. In bothcountries, teachers are highly valued socially, and learning EFL is emphasized
as early as Grade 3 (Sarja et al., 2017). Where they differ is in how institutions
select students, using interviews, discussions, and essay writing as opposed tostandardized reading, grammar, and listening tests. When admitted, Finnish
students’ English skills exceed C1 on the Common European Frame of Reference(CEFR) (Little, 2006), and they need to take no further English classes.
71

OnodaA closely related case is that of English language teaching in Taiwan. With
both English proficiency and teaching skills now emphasized, pre-service
teachers take more English-related courses than in Japan and must use English as
an instructional and interactional language (Tokyo Gakugei University, 2016).
Additionally, those with English proficiency below CEFR B2 may not graduate
from teacher education programs (Ministry of Education, ROC, 2019).
In comparison, undergraduate English teacher education courses in Japan
struggle to produce qualified pre-service English teachers with advanced English
skills. These skills, including interactive pair presentations with small-group
discussion and their effect on L2 interactional skills development, are discussed
next based on participants’ feedback and teacher assessments.
Interactional Skills
Although the definition of interactional skills varies, it generally consists of
the ability to produce co-constructed understandings and is therefore roughly
equivalent to communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). For effective
interaction to occur, participants must demonstrate sociolinguistic, grammatical,
discoursal, and strategic competence (Ellis & Shintani, 2013), thus making
speaking fluency and accuracy critical (Nation & Newton, 2009).
Segalowitz (2010) suggests that messages that are not reasonably fluent,accurate, or natural require speaker and interlocutor to make extra efforts tounderstand them, thus hindering cognitive processing in both interlocutors.
Consequently, messages may be interpreted negatively, interrupted for better
understanding, or simply misunderstood (Derwing, Munro, & Thomson, 2007).
L2 teacher education (Sato, 2012) considers that pedagogical endeavors
improve oral fluency and interactional skills in pre-service English teachers.
However, research in approaches to their improvement remains limited (Onoda,
2013; Rossiter, Derwing, Manimtim, & Thomson, 2010), even in settings wheretask-based teaching has been adopted (Ellis & Shintani, 2013; Rossiter et al.,2010).

72

Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89

Components of Oral Fluency
In response to this challenge, L2 literature (Nation, 2013; DeKeyser, 2007)
indicates various strategies designed to enhance L2 oral fluency. These include
automatization of language items, repetition, and pushed output. Below, I outline
how these can contribute to oral fluency development.
Automatization. Automatization denotes the ability to effortlessly retrieve
meaningful chunks of language from the mental lexicon (Kormos, 2006;
Segalowitz, 2010). L2 studies indicate that automatization can be achieved
through repeated encounters with or retrievals of language items (Nation,
2015; Schmitt & Carter, 2004). This matches the L2 speech production model
developed by Kormos (2006), according to which improving oral fluency
consists of enriching the mental lexicon and facilitating instantaneous accessto it. Strategies designed to promote these key cognitive processes include
repetition and pushed output (Nation, 2013).
Repetition. For automatization to occur, meaningful chunks of language
must be internalized through repeated practice (DeKeyser, 2007). L2 literatureshows that effective vocabulary learning depends on repeated retrievals of newwords (Nation, 2015). This is supported by connectionist theories (e.g., Ellis,
2002), which posit that repeated access reinforces neural connections to a
specific mental lexicon, while less active neural connections fade away. Similarly,
Anderson’s (1993) skills development theory posits that combining meaningfullanguage chunks into larger units enables learners to automatize, thus yielding
fluent and accurate language use.
Pushed output. Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis (1985) suggested
that to acquire an L2, it is necessary not only to be exposed to comprehensible
input (Krashen & Terrell, 1983) but also to engage in comprehensible output.
Swain argued that output helps learners acquire the L2 through three functions:noticing and triggering, hypothesis testing, and metalinguistic reflection.
However, without pushed output, learners fall back on what they know andavoid using what they cannot use confidently, thereby failing to expand their
linguistic knowledge. Thus, learners should engage in activities that address
unfamiliar topics and tasks and include pushed output, which requires them to73Onodamake their receptive knowledge productive (Nation, 2014; Onoda, 2014).
Improving Oral Fluency. Among approaches to developing oral fluency
found in the L2 literature, one of the most promising is the four strands ofteaching (Nation, 2015). These consist of meaning-focused input, meaningfocused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development activities.
By integrating these four strands, learners gradually take fluent and accurate
control of the language, thereby communicating effectively. However, given the
English skills of participants in teacher education courses in Japan, instruction
should focus on meaning-focused output and fluency development because both
affect automatization through repetition and pushed output (Nation, 2014;
Onoda, 2014).
Nation (2015) also recommended that linked skills be used for oral fluency
development. Here, a single topic is focused upon for an extended period, withlearners engaging in a sequence of tasks using different language skills. For
example, students read a news item, summarize the main points along with theirreactions, present these to peers, engage them in discussing key questions raisedin the text, moderate the discussion, and elicit opinions and suggestions based onthese. However, research on the effects of linked-skills activities on oral fluency
development remains limited (Nation, 2014; Onoda, 2012).
Nation (2015) also argued for the use of issue logs for oral fluency
development. Here, students individually select a topic of interest, searchsocial media for a piece on that topic, and prepare a summary, two discussion
questions, and their opinion on the issues it raises. In class, they form pairs, taketurns in reporting their summary, elicit their partner’s opinions of the discussion
questions, and record these down in the issue log, repeating the process withthree different partners over several class meetings.
Another promising approach relevant to undergraduate English teacher
education consists of presenting a chapter from a textbook on second language
acquisition theories and their applications to teaching followed by a small-group
discussion drawing on linked-skills activities. Justifications are as follows: (a)students are familiar with tasks integrating the four language skills; (b) they findlinked skills useful and engaging (Nation & Newton, 2009; Onoda, 2013); and74

Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89(c) the final speaking stage requires them to produce and listen to the same key
language features repeatedly, which facilitates deep processing. Through thisactivity, learners not only see improvements in their English skills but also gain
confidence in discussing topics in English.
This interpretation is supported by self-determination theory (Deci &Ryan, 2002), which postulates that humans seek to satisfy three innate desires:competence, autonomy, and relatedness. This drives them to take action,
including in language learning as learners are motivated to take control of theirlearning while communicating in English, ultimately feeling competent andconfident in using English. An important point is that the effects of confidence
and self-efficacy on academic achievement are well-documented, including
in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), with self-efficacy being a strong
predictor of academic achievement (and vice versa). Accordingly, this study
attempts to answer the following research question: Do the interactional skills
represented by oral fluency of pre-service English teachers improve when they
engage in interactive pair presentations with small-group discussion?

Methods

This study investigated the effects of interactive pair presentations with smallgroup discussion over one academic term. Data regarding L2 oral fluency gains
were collected from speech rate (i.e., number of words per minute excluding
reformulations, replacements, false starts, and pauses; Bei, 2010) obtained fromstory-retelling tasks, which are known from L2 literature to be generally reliable(Lennon, 1990; Segalowitz, 2010).
To support the interpretation of the results through triangulation, interviews
with randomly selected participants were conducted shortly after the storyretelling task at the end of the research period. Participants were interviewed
individually and asked about the effects of the activities. Each interview lasted
approximately 10 minutes.
ParticipantsParticipants consisted of senior English majors enrolled in English Teacher
Education Course 4 at a university in eastern Japan, with 15 class meetings in75

Onodathe 2014 fall term (n = 21) and 15 in the 2015 fall term (n = 21). This is anelective course for students seeking to obtain a secondary school English teaching
license. Participants had taken Courses 1, 2, and 3, learning basic teaching skills
and completing a mandatory three-week teaching practice, including interactingwith students as homeroom teachers, supervising club activities, and teaching
English to students with diverse proficiencies and motivations.
Approval was granted from university administrators for using students’
TOEFL and story-retelling test data. Written informed consent was obtained
from participants after the nature and purpose of the research was explained
to them in class. Explanations and consent forms indicated the following: (a)participation in the study would in no way affect their grades; (b) personal
information, including names and test scores, would be unidentifiable were thestudy to be published; and (c) they could opt out of the study at any time. No
participants asked to withdraw, and all agreed to submit their TOEFL and storyretelling test data.
Data obtained at the beginning of each term (fall 2014 and fall 2015)
revealed the following English proficiency levels: 2014 group: M = 545.45, SD= 55.65; 2015 group: M = 554.25, SD = 78.18, as measured by TOEFL ITP.
Regarding oral fluency scores (measured by a story-retelling task described
below), scores were: 2014 group: M = 70.81, SD = 4.23; 2015 group: M =70.24, SD = 4.15 (Table 1). Given the small sample size, Levene’s test indicatedthat equal variance could be assumed (TOEFL scores: t = -.49, p = .68; storytelling task: t = -.28, p = .79).
Two t-tests compared the TOEFL and story-retelling scores of the twogroups using Bonferroni adjustment to control for Type 1 error (Green &Salkind, 2005) across the two comparisons. A p-value of .025 was required forsignificance. Results indicated that there was no significant difference between
the two groups (TOEFL scores: t = -49, p =. 63 > .05; story-retelling scores: t=- .24, p = .66 > .05). The 2014 class was therefore designated as the Control
group, and the 2015 class as the Experimental group. No statistical outliers wereidentified.

76

Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89
Table 1
Tasks Included in Interventions
Tasks

CommonTasks

DifferenttasksGroupsControl group

Experimental group

Reading the textbook and answering
reading questions (R & W)

Reading the textbook and answering
reading questions (R & W)

Creating an outline and giving thepresentation (W, R, S, L)

Creating an outline and giving thepresentation (W, R, S, L)

Teacher’s interactive session including agroup discussion (L & S)

Leading a group discussion (L & S)

Note. L = listening skills, S = speaking skills, R = reading skills, W = writing skills

Pedagogical intervention
The control group students read the designated textbook out of class (Nation &Newton, 2009) along with a worksheet that included reading questions. In eachclass meeting (90 minutes), two pairs of students took turns to present the main
points of two different chapters, including questions to the audience (20 minutes
per pair) followed by teacher-led interactive sessions in which the teacher elicitedquestions the presenters had missed and clarified students’ understanding of
the main points. The teacher worked on engaging the audience in discussing
questions relevant to the key concepts discussed in the chapters, moderated thesmall-group discussion, and elicited ideas and opinions based on these concepts(25 minutes each: 50 minutes).
The experimental group students read the same textbook and worksheet. In
each class meeting (90 minutes), two pairs of students presented the main points
from two different chapters and set discussion questions to the class to deepen
their understanding of these points (20 minutes per pair). The pairs then engaged
the audience in discussing questions relevant to the key concepts discussed in
the chapter, moderated the discussion, and elicited ideas and opinions based onthese concepts (25 minutes per pair). (Note that the total time both groups were
engaged in tasks was kept equivalent in order to measure the effects of different
tasks on oral fluency development as fairly as possible.)77

OnodaMeasuring oral fluency. Studies of oral fluency adopt different definitionsof the construct. Tavakoli and Skehan (2005) categorized three main measuresof fluency: speed (number of words spoken), breakdown (total pause time andfrequency of pauses), and repair (number of hesitations, repetitions, and false
starts). Among these, speed fluency (speech rate, or number of words producedby participants in one minute) was found to be highly reliable (Lennon, 1990;
Segalowitz, 2010) and was therefore adopted here to measure L2 oral fluency inboth groups.
Various task types designed to measure oral fluency are used in research. One
particularly promising instrument is the story-retelling task, which is discussed
below.
Story-retelling tasks. L2 literature indicates that depending on theirdefinition of oral fluency, researchers employ different tasks to elicit speech
production, including reading or picture description tasks, interview tests, andgroup discussions. However, Segalowitz (2010) indicated that a particularlyaccessible metric is the story-retelling task, for example, showing participants
pictures and asking them to describe the scene within a time limit, a task foundto be reliable by Lennon (1990). Similarly, Onoda (2012) found that university
students enjoyed and actively engaged in such a task. Because it also offers
pedagogical benefits, the task was well suited to the current research purpose.
Participants were given a familiar news story in their L1 (approximately
500 Japanese characters) and asked to read it silently for five minutes. They
were allowed to take notes of key words and main points, including what
happened, when and where it happened, and what were some of the causes
and consequences. They were then asked to report their conclusions andgive their opinion about it in English in three minutes. Their renderings wereaudio-recorded, and the speech rate (total words spoken per minute excluding
reformulations, replacements, false starts, and pauses) was calculated anddiscussed with a Japanese colleague with a doctorate in testing in applied
linguistics, a track record of quantitative publications in language testing, andlong experience of teaching university students.
As discussed in the previous paragraphs, the story-retelling task was78Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89

administered to each group at the beginning and end of the research period.
Thus, all participants engaged in two story-retelling tasks covering different
topics and elementary school English education.
To determine how fluency developed over the period, transcripts of the preand post-tests were compared for each participant.
To triangulate the quantitative results and to permit an in-depth analysis
of participants’ perceptions, interviews were conducted in Japanese with fiverandomly selected students from each group after obtaining their informed
consent. There were three males and two females in the control group, with
TOEFL ITP scores of 515, 520 535, 550, and 575, and two males and threefemales in the experimental group, with scores of 525, 537, 547, 570, and 585.
Translations of interview transcripts were checked and confirmed using the backtranslation approach with the help of the colleague mentioned above.

Results and Discussion
Quantitative results
This study investigated the effects on L2 oral fluency development of a pairpresentation with small-group discussion in an experimental group. This wascompared to a pair presentation followed by a teacher-led interactive session ina control group. The rationale for this comparison was that fluency is a criticalcomponent of L2 interactional skills. Descriptive statistics for story-retelling testscores are presented in Table 2.
As a necessary procedure for statistical analysis using pairwise comparisons,it was confirmed that the sample met all assumptions for using a t-test (Green& Salkind, 2005). No outliers were identified, and skewness and kurtosis weredeemed acceptable.
A t-test was conducted to investigate whether the experimental group
significantly improved in oral fluency over one term compared to the control
group. Results indicate that the mean of the experimental group (M = 89.21,
SD = 4.8) was significantly greater than that of the control group (M = 73.50,
SD = 4.1), t(20) = 4.3, p < .01. Effect size (Cohen’s d = .21) was small (though
non-negligible) even based on Takeuchi and Mizumoto’s (2014) less restrictive
79

OnodaTable 2
Descriptive Statistics for Story-retelling Task Scores
Story-retelling test
Control group (n = 21)

Experimental group (n = 21)

Tests

Pre-test

Post-test

Pre-test

Post-test

M

70.81

76.50

70.24

89.21

SD

4.20

4.10

4.10

4.80

Skewness

0.75

-0.55

0.78

-0.71

Kurtosis

0.78

-0.69

0.97

0.48

.20 norm for the application of this test in applied linguistics, given that otherresearchers, including Plonsky and Oswald (2014), suggest that Cohen’s dshould equal or exceed .4 for a small effect size.
Interviews
To permit in-depth analysis of participants’ perceptions regarding the above
results, interviews were conducted with five randomly selected students fromeach group. Sample responses are shown in the Appendix.
Control group. Students in the control group felt that rehearsing
presentations contributed to more accurate and fluent speech production. Also,
pre-set questions guided presenters in understanding the main points and helped
them organize their presentations.
Regarding the teacher’s interactive follow-up session, the teacher’s
explanations were considered helpful in clarifying students’ understanding of
key concepts. In addition, students were motivated to interact with the teacher
for clarifications.
Experimental group. Regarding presentations, students felt that writing
an outline and rehearsing were effective. In addition, reading questions guided
presenters in understanding the main points and helped them organize theirpresentations, a comment shared with the control group. Importantly, presentersbenefited from creating questions, guiding group discussions, and eliciting80Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89

students’ ideas. This activity kept them talking and (re)using key ideas and words.
Consequently, they felt confident about conducting a discussion session andcommunicating in English. Although participants had different interpretationsof some key concepts, they were encouraged to talk about them at length andto understand others’ ideas and confirm their own. In doing so, they often
used words from the textbook and came to understand what they meant. In
addition, they understood the value of integrating the four language skills andof processing the same information and language items repeatedly because thisstrengthens their productive skills (writing and speaking).
Participants’ feedback also revealed a picture of learning processes, suggestingthat these activities helped them learn new language features, including
vocabulary and sentence structures as they carefully processed these features
through multiple skills. Close analysis also reveals that these processes include
factors critical to improving learners’ oral fluency, including automatization,
repetition, and pushed output.
Inter-group comparison. Feedback from control group participantssuggests that the teacher-led interactive session was valuable in making themnotice and clarify their misunderstandings and in motivating them to study
second language acquisition in greater depth. However, regarding spoken
language use, not all learners actively interacted with the teacher, probably
because there was a mixture of whole-class and small-group sessions and perhaps
because some students may already have understood the key concepts. Whilecontrol group participants, who engaged in the teacher-led interactive follow-up
session, showed improvements in oral fluency and interactional skills, comparedto the experimental group, the degree of automatization appeared less deep orrobust as that resulting from the small-group discussion.
In contrast, the quantitative results show that the interactive small-group
discussions had profound effects on oral fluency improvement. Participant
feedback also indicates that, perhaps due to the small number of participants,
group discussions stimulated active language use and encouraged learners tointeract because if the same ideas were repeated and elaborated upon, if theyremained unclear, their meaning was negotiated among group members. This
81

Onodagenerated deep processing of language units, possibly because discussions
intrinsically embed automatization-promoting factors such as repetition andpushed output (Nation, 2014; Onoda, 2014).
Support for these conclusions comes from affective and social perspectives on
language learning. As self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002) predicts,
interactive pair presentations with discussion affected the three critical factors
humans need to satisfy: competence, autonomy, and relatedness, and this may
have motivated students to take control of their learning while communicating
in English. Ultimately, learners wished to feel competent and confident in using
English. This interpretation is substantiated by social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1986), which argues that to enhance learners’ self-efficacy, teachers can do someor all of the following: a) help learners experience personal mastery throughrepeated successful experiences; b) allow them to observe peers in overcoming
challenging tasks and achieving success; c) provide for positive peer and teacher
feedback; and d) reduce anxiety during learning.
These theoretical underpinnings hold true for interactive pair presentations
with small-group discussion, as feedback from the experimental group indicates.
As presenters, they read the chapter repeatedly, summarized the main points, andrehearsed their presentation to make their delivery natural and fluent. The timeand energy thus devoted may have contributed to their sense of responsibility
in conducting small-group sessions because for the session to be successful, eachpair needed to understand key second language acquisition theories as well as
their practical applications to teaching and then prepare discussion questions
that required deep thinking and encouraged the audience to discuss them moredeeply. These discussions thus motivated presenters to rehearse extensively
because they needed to think deeply and to actively discuss the questions. Inturn, pressure to conduct discussions positively affected their preparation.
During this preparation stage, students in the experimental group engaged
in conscious repetition and pushed output. This not only helped them deliverspeech naturally but also built up confidence in interacting with classmates.
Although the control group engaged in similar processes, there was no needfor them to create questions. Thus, they were under no pressure to prepare or82

Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89

rehearse as intensively as the experimental group, working instead in a morerelaxed manner, based on the researcher’s observations as well as student
feedback.
This holds true for small-group discussions, where presenters exercised
control by setting discussion questions, moderating the discussion, and eliciting
ideas and opinions, thus keeping the entire procedure under control and relating
to audience members on a personal basis while building positive relationships
by eliciting opinions. Ultimately, participants became highly motivated to learn
about second language acquisition theories and their applications to teaching
and became more willing to share their ideas with the presenters, thereby
creating a cooperative atmosphere, a positive marker of good performance. Thus,
the presenters’ desires for competence, autonomy, and relatedness were met,
making them more confident and motivating them to engage in the task because
they could socialize during discussions and take part in their own way. Throughnegotiation and repetition of key concepts and words and as a result of being
pushed to express their ideas, they reported in interviews that they felt a growing
sense of competence. Overall, the experimental group’s improved performanceshows the value of automatization promoted through two key strategies: pushed
output and the deep processing generated by the repeated use of language items
embedded in interactive pair presentations with small-group discussion.

Conclusion

Interactive pair presentations with small-group discussion were effective in
improving L2 oral fluency and interactional skills in university English majors.
The approach, which includes repetition and pushed output, encourages learners
to process key language items in all four skills, thus promoting deep processing
and facilitating automatization.
However, caution is needed as sample size was small and participants wererelatively motivated English majors who planned to become English teachers.
Moreover, instead of measuring L2 interactional skills, the study measured oral
fluency as its critical component. Investigating larger groups or different types ofparticipants and adopting different definitions of interactional skills might lead
83

Onodato different results. Replication studies should be conducted in order to verify
the present findings.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a President Research Grant from the Faculty ofInternational Liberal Arts, Juntendo University. I am especially grateful to Prof.
Eiki Kominami, Dean of the Faculty of International Liberal Arts, for enabling
me to conduct part of the research at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1993). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bei, G. X. (2010, March). Re-examining relations among fluency, accuracy,complexity, and lexis in L2 speaking. Paper presented at the meeting of theAmerican Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Atlanta, GA.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing, Applied Linguistics,
1(1), 3-47.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination. Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied
linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2007). A longitudinal studyof ESL learners' fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied
Linguistics, 29(3), 359-380.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143-188.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second
language acquisition research. New York, NY: Routledge.
84

Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh:Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). London, England: PrenticeHall.
Kontoniemi, M., & Salo, O-P. (2011) Educating teachers in the PISA paradigm:
Perspectives on teacher education at a Finnish university. Jyväskylä, Finland:
University of Jyväskylä Press.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach. New York, NY:
Pergamon.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach.
Language Learning, 40(3), 387-417.
Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception, and impact. Language
Teaching, 39(3), 167-190.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology).
(2009). Koutougakkou gakushu shidou yoryo gaikokugo eigoban kariyaku[Course of Study guidelines for foreign languages in senior high schools:
Provisional version]. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/
new-cs/youryou/eiyaku/1298353.htm
Ministry of Education, ROC. (2019). Education System. Retrieved fromhttps://english.moe.gov.tw/mp-1.html
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). What should every EFL teacher know? Seoul, South
Korea: Compass Publishing.
Nation, I. S. P. (2014). Developing fluency. In T. Muller, J. Adamson, P. S.
Brown, & S. Herder (Eds.), Exploring EFL fluency in Asia (pp. 11-25).
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nation, I. S. P. (2015). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Onoda, S. (2012). Effects of repetition of selected news stories on oral fluency
85

Onodain media English learning. Media, English, and Communication, 2, 89-113.
Onoda, S. (2013). Investigating effects of a closely-linked four-skills approachon English speaking fluency development. Global Science and Technology
Forum, 1(1), 62-70.
Onoda, S. (2014). An exploration of effective teaching approaches forenhancing the oral fluency of EFL students. In T. Muller, J. Adamson, P. S.
Brown, & S. Herder (Eds.), Exploring EFL fluency in Asia (pp. 120-142).
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Onoda, S., Miyashita, O., & Yoshino, Y. (2017). Innovating in undergraduate
English teacher education programs. Juntendo Journal of Global Studies, 2,
58-65.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizesin L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878-912.
Rossiter, M. J., Derwing, T. M., Manimtim, L. G., & Thompson, R. I. (2010).
Oral fluency: The neglected component in the communicative language
classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(4), 583-606.
Sano, F., Saito, H., & Yoshida, H. (2016). Monbukagakusho kenkyuhi joseijyugyo
chosenteki hoga kenkyu [Final report: Development and validity of 5-year
English teacher education programs to foster global citizens]. Yokohama,Japan: Yokohama National University Press.
Sarja, A., Nyman, T., Ito, H., & Jaatinen, R. (2017). The foreign language
teaching profession in Finnish and Japanese society. A socioculturalcomparison. Pedagogy, Culture, and Society, 25(2), 225-241.
Sato, K. (2012, November). Changing a teaching culture: From individual
practice to curriculum development. Paper presented at the 2012 JALT
conference, Nagoya, Japan.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York,
NY: Routledge.
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, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
86Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89

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. 21-37). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Takeuchi, O., & Mizumoto, A. (2014). Gaikokugo kyouiku kenkyu handobuku,
kaiteiban. [Foreign Language Educational Research Handbook] (2nd ed.).
Tokyo, Japan: Shohakusha.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, andperformance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed), Planning and task performance ina second language (pp. 239-276). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Tokyo Gakugei University. (2016). Eigokyoinno eigoryoku shidoryokukyoka
notameno chosa kenkyu jigyo heisei 28 nendo houkokusho. [Report on
research on the improvement of English and teaching skills of secondary
school English teachers. 2016 Report]. Retrieved from http://www.ugakugei.ac.jp/~estudy/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/symposium_report_
all_c.pdf (in Japanese)
Wakabayashi, S., Kosuge, K., & Kosuge, A., (2016). Eigoha osowataa youni
oshieruna [Don’t teach English the way you were taught]. Tokyo, Japan:
Kenkyusha.

Author bio

Sakae Onoda is Professor of English Education, Faculty of International Liberal
Arts, Juntendo University. His research interests include English teacher education,materials development, developing listening, speaking, and writing fluency,
improving interactional skills, facilitating self-regulated language learning, andenhancing vocabulary acquisition and use by EFL learners. sakaeonoda@gmail.
com
Received: December 21, 2018
Accepted: June 12, 201987

OnodaAppendixComments
1. Control group• S1: It was a good exercise for us to rehearse together a few times before
the presentation. It helped us use new expressions more easily and speak
more smoothly, accurately, and fluently.
• S1, S2, S5: The reading question worksheets prepared by the teacher
were very helpful in understanding the main points and organizing thepresentation. I read the main points many times and tried to express themin English.
• S3: It was good to ask the teacher about what was not clear, but not
everyone asked him nor wanted to interact with him.
• S1, S2, S4, S5: The teacher’s explanations helped us clarify ourunderstanding and also notice our misunderstandings.
• S1, S2, S4, S5: I usually asked the teacher to clarify my understandings
because the teachers’ interactive session helped me understand the key
concepts described in the textbook because he explained them in easy
English and using familiar examples.
2. Experimental group• S6, S7, S8: It was effective to write an outline for our presentation andrehearse several times before the presentation.
• S6, S7, S8: In general, people sometimes had different interpretations andideas and it was very useful for us to exchange and confirm these different
ideas. We talked a lot to really understand other people’s ideas and tried
to understand the words they used.
• S7, S8: In answering the discussion questions, sometimes we used thewords and phrases used in the text, and it gave us a good chance to discuss
what they really meant in practical terms.
• S7, S8: The discussions were very effective. I noticed my misunderstandings
and learned about new ideas and experiences from the other groupmembers. This encouraged us to interact with one another.
88Enhancing L2 Interactional Skills, OCJSI 1, pages 70-89• S7, S9: It was a great learning opportunity for us presenters to give
discussion questions, moderate and guide group discussions, and elicit
students’ ideas. I had to keep interacting with them using key ideas andwords. It helped me understand how to use them in combination withother words.
• S6, S8, S10: As a presenter, I felt a sense of achievement in conducting a
discussion session, and now I’m very confident in communicating withothers about second language acquisition.
• S7, S9, S10: It was good practice to use new words when talking to myclassmates. In fact, I felt more confident in interacting with others usingthem.
• S8, S10: It was good to listen, read, write, and speak about the same
information because it helped me remember some important words andphrases, with this knowledge strengthened in writing and speaking.

89