Teaching Practice Report

A Guide to Using a Mobile Application
to Track Spoken Fluency
Heather Woodward
Joshua Rappeneker
Keiko Fujino

Abstract
In previous Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research (JFLER) articles,
we wrote about designing a mobile application to measure students’ monologic
spoken fluency in classroom settings (Woodward & Gupta, 2022; Woodward &Rappeneker, 2023). Currently, instructors of Rikkyo University’s English Discussion
Class (EDC) do not have an objective and quantitative method for monitoring
students’ English spoken fluency development across the semester. Yet, the languagebased goal of EDC is to develop it (Hurling, 2012). The purpose of this article is toprovide an instructional guide on how to use the mobile application. After testing theapp, it has undergone many modifications since 2022. Therefore, in addition to how
to use the application, we discuss the features that have worked, the ones that havenot, and the ones that we plan to add. We provide support for app-based choices withtheory and research into the field of spoken fluency development. With this paper,
we hope that the instructors who wish to incorporate the mobile app will be able to
do so.
Keywords: CALL, MALL, ESL, Speaking, Monologues

Introduction
Assessing spoken fluency in second language (L2) speakers is recognized as achallenging task, acknowledged by many evaluators (Kang et al., 2019). Tavakoli (2016) andTavakoli and Wright (2020) describe spoken fluency as a multifaceted construct influenced
by various factors, including psycholinguistic aspects like anxiety and motivation, linguistic
factors like L2 vocabulary and first language fluency, and sociolinguistic factors such as L2
exposure and group dynamics. Factors such as studying abroad, rehearsal time, task type, andtopic familiarity can also impact spoken fluency (Wright, 2020).
These elements make spoken fluency difficult when assessing to generalize results.
The language-based goal is to enhance L2 spoken fluency in English discussion class (Hurling,47

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）2012), yet instructors currently lack a method to track students’ progress in English spoken
fluency throughout the semester. To tackle this challenge, we created a mobile application
specifically tailored to assess students’ monologic spoken fluency on topics familiar to them.
Given the complex nature of spoken fluency, we have not determined the extent to which
students’ spoken fluency results are generalizable to other task types or to unfamiliar topics, so
the results are best interpreted narrowly in regards to students’ monologic speeches on familiar
topics. According to Segalowitz and Freed (2004), spoken fluency can be improved significantly
in non-immersion environments. Thus, despite its limitations, the app might be useful as apedagogical tool for students to track their progress throughout the semester and to acquire
greater metalinguistic knowledge of spoken fluency.

Literature Review
Spoken Fluency
Spoken fluency is narrowly defined as the effortless and continuous quality of speech,characterized by traits like fluidity and smoothness (Segalowitz, 2010; Tavakoli, 2016).
Segalowitz (2010) delineates a multidimensional model of spoken fluency that comprises threeinterrelated components: cognitive, perceived, and utterance fluency. Cognitive fluency pertains
to the mental processes involved in generating L2 speech, encompassing the time elapsed
from conceptualization to articulation. This aspect is operationalized through reaction timemeasurements (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993). Perceived fluency involves assessments offluency made by listeners (Segalowitz, 2010; Segalowitz, 2016). Lastly, according to this model,
utterance fluency entails observable, surface-level features of speed, breakdowns, and repairs.
Speed is the rate of speech production; breakdown denotes a complete or partial interruption
in the flow of speech; and repair occurs when speakers rectify mistakes or omissions in theirintended message, often through repetition or self-correction. Utterance features of spoken
fluency, along with listeners’ perceived fluency judgments, can provide ways to measure
dimensions of spoken fluency. One such utterance feature is untrimmed speech rate, a composite
measure of fluency encompassing speed, breakdowns, and repairs, without the deduction of any
disfluencies from the final calculation. According to Suzuki et al. (2021), composite measures
such as speech rate are highly correlated with listener-based perceived spoken fluency.
Benefits of developing L2 spoken fluency include: a) intelligibility; b) effective
communication in real-life situations; and c) fulfilling future aspirations. To begin with, a)
intelligibility pertains to how easily listeners can understand the meaning of a spoken message.
When speakers talk too slowly, it can hinder the comprehension and intelligibility of theirmessage, as listeners may struggle to maintain attention (Lennon, 2000). In terms of b) effective
communication in real-life scenarios, speakers who converse too slowly might encounterchallenges in saving face (Lennon, 2000). While factors like vocabulary, complexity, and48

A Guide to Using a Mobile Application to Track Spoken Fluency

accuracy contribute only minimally to human ratings of spoken performance, spoken fluency
significantly influences scores on standardized speaking assessments (Ogawa, 2022). With
regards to c) future objectives, standardized tests like IELTS can act as gatekeepers, facilitating
learners in realizing their ambitions of studying or working abroad. While benefits to cultivating
spoken fluency exist, activities crafted to enhance this skill are frequently overlooked in theclassroom (Rossiter et al., 2010; Tavakoli & Hunter, 2018). In instances where educators
do focus on speaking skills, they typically involve students in speaking exercises without
introducing them to the particular metalinguistic aspects related to repair, breakdown, andspeed (Tavakoli & Hunter, 2018).
3/2/1 Activity
According to Nation and Newton (2009), effective spoken fluency activities exhibit threecharacteristics: they (a) provide support to enhance students’ performance, (b) encourage theuse of already known language items, and (c) prioritize the emphasis on meaning over form. To
meet the first requirement, time-constrained activities can be employed, where instructors set
specific time limits for completing a task. For the second requirement, choose familiar topics,
such as friends, family, or school life, and encourage students to incorporate their existing L2
knowledge. Finally, to fulfill the third requirement, students can be paired with a new listening
partner each round to create a knowledge gap. The 4/3/2 activity introduced by Maurice (1983)aligns with all requirements. Speakers discuss a familiar topic for four minutes. After that, thespeakers switch to new listening partners and repeat their monologues within three minutes.
This process is repeated with speakers having only two minutes to repeat their monologues.
The belief is that the decreasing time constraint and repeated practice helps speakers to increase
their spoken fluency (Nation & Newton, 2009). For time-constraints or students with lower
proficiency, the time can be modified to 3/2/1.

Mobile Application
Students can download the mobile application on their phones and use it both in andoutside of the class. During EDC, while they participate in a modified 4/3/2 activity called 3/2/1,
they can use the app. Figure 1 below shows the first few screens.

49

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

Figure 1
Pages of the Mobile Application (From Rappeneker, 2023)

Upon logging into the app (first picture from the left), users see ‘speaker,’ ‘other,’ and‘settings’ (second picture). If users click on ‘speaker,’ the application moves to the weekly
questions page (third picture). After selecting ‘other,’ users can view the screen on the far right(fourth picture) the single speech sections, high scores, and graphs (fourth picture). On the third
picture to the left, students are provided with a list of questions, derived from Sturges et al.’s(2023) “What’s Your Opinion?” When students are using the mobile application, having thesequestions on the screen is convenient. At the bottom of the screen, students press the record
button and respond to the questions. The speedometer represents the speakers’ untrimmed
speech rate (i.e., average syllables per minute). After students press the record button, a timer
appears. The timer displays the seconds remaining before the recording ends. 180 seconds
appears in the first round, 120 in the second round, and 60 in the third round. After the timer
ends, the phone vibrates to alert speakers. Speakers see a page which instructs them to handtheir phones to their listening partners. Once listeners have the speakers’ phones, their partner
rates spoken fluency.
Figure 2 below has screenshots of the listener-based evaluations of their partner’s
spoken fluency.
Figure 2
Listeners̓ Spoken Fluency and Comprehensibility (From Rappeneker, 2023)

50

A Guide to Using a Mobile Application to Track Spoken Fluency

In the initial app design, there was only one question for fluency with six carrots (i.e.,with short descriptors). The original question was, “How fluent was the speech?” This design
had shortcomings, stemming from the multidimensional nature of spoken fluency and interrater
reliability issues. One problem encountered was that raters might assign different overall fluency
ratings based on their individual beliefs regarding one dimension’s importance over another.
The listener-based value differentiation was not clear to the speakers when only asked “Howfluent was the speech?” and therefore, we found that from a pedagogical viewpoint, the utilityof the feedback to speakers was limited. To account for this issue, we separated questions for
spoken fluency to represent aspects of its multidimensionality (i.e., perceivable features of
speed, breakdowns, and repairs). We also believe that listeners who evaluate the speeches also
benefit from the experience of evaluating fluency as it might help to increase their awareness.
In the original design, listeners would assign carrots, which corresponded to a level of fluency.
In terms of changes, we removed the assigning of carrots so that listeners would focus primarily
on describing the performance. Additionally, from observation, listeners seemed compelled togive speakers carrots as rewards rather than as a representation of the performance itself.
By observing videos of speakers at different L2 proficiencies, we devised a system forlisteners to describe their speaking partners’ performances. The questions are as follows:• How often were there filled pauses?
 Often / Sometimes / Rarely / Cannot remember• How often were there silent pauses?
 Often / Sometimes / Rarely / Cannot remember• How often were there repeated words or phrases?
 Often / Sometimes / Rarely / Cannot remember• How often did the speaker speak slowly?
 Often / Sometimes / Rarely / Cannot remember
Regarding the first two questions about filled pauses, these types of pauses are voicedwith utterances such as ‘uh’ or ‘um.’ The next two questions about silent, or unfilled, pauses
are unvoiced gaps. To help students identify pauses, the primary author created an instructional
video. In the video, repeated words or phrases and speed of speech are also reviewed. We chosethese aspects of breakdowns and repairs because they are perceivable aspects of performanceand this information might motivate students to focus on the linguistic purpose of the 3/2/1
activity. In addition, the video also defines ‘often,’ ‘sometimes,’ and ‘rarely’ for the “Howoften…?” questions. Listeners who perceive many disfluencies select ‘often’ when they perceive
less disfluencies and they select ‘rarely’ when they perceive fewer disfluencies. There is no‘none’ option because to a certain extent, disfluencies are a natural characteristic of speecheven for first language speakers, so the goal of trying to eliminate all disfluencies seems
51

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

unreasonable. In the video, listeners are instructed to choose ‘rarely’ even if they do not hearany disfluency.
Originally, we had added a comprehensibility question for listening partners. The
reason we included the question was to encourage students to focus on both meaning and form
throughout the speech. The initial question was as follows:• How easy was it to understand the speaker?
 Easy / Often Easy / Sometimes Easy / Rarely Easy
There are two related types of questions regarding understanding: one pertains tocomprehensibility, while the other relates to intelligibility (Munro & Derwing, 1995). According
to Munro and Derwing (1997) comprehensibility is the listener-based judgment regarding theease or difficulty of understanding utterances. On the other hand, intelligibility is a measurementof the extent to which the speaker’s actual intent is understood. We do not have a way totest intelligibility in this situation, so the question we asked was regarding comprehensibility,
regarding the extent to which listeners expended energy understanding the content of the
speech. The problem with this question was that listeners could not focus simultaneously oncomprehending the content of the speech and also spoken fluency. In addition to this problem,the comprehensibility question might be more of a reflection of the listeners’ listening ability
to understand the speech rather than the speakers’ speaking ability. Students had been placed
in classes based on their TOEIC test scores and therefore we believed that if they were roughly
at the same proficiency, then listeners would be capable of making judgments pertaining to
the speakers’ ability rather than their own listening ability. Therefore, one of the future goalsof the app is to train models to monitor different aspects of spoken fluency to mimic listeners’
perceived fluency judgments so that listeners are free to use their attentional resources forcomprehension.
We currently do not have a model that can mimic listeners’ perceived fluency judgments.
However, adding listener-based evaluation might increase students’ metalinguistic awareness of
spoken fluency and its dimensions of breakdowns, repairs, and speed. For example, if students
know that pausing frequently to recall words decreases fluency, and then they receive feedback
from the mobile application and peer feedback that they often pause, then they might feelcompelled to seek out and utilize strategies to improve their performance. For this reason, we
included a page about different strategies for improving spoken fluency that students will bedirected to after reading automated comments about their performance in the feedback section.
Figure 3 below includes representations of the survey, progress, and strategy pages.

52

A Guide to Using a Mobile Application to Track Spoken Fluency

Figure 3
Survey, Progress, and Strategy Pages (From Rappeneker, 2023)

In the first photo from the left, in the future, application users will be able to view
their speech rate for each of the three rounds of 3/2/1 across the semester. At the bottom of thepage, the application will calculate the percentage of change between performances and offer
feedback on strategies to improve their performance. In the second photo from the left, users
will be able to see averages from their listening partners’ spoken fluency evaluations as well as
a summary of their performance generated by the application. In the third photo from the left,
there are three survey questions regarding the last 3/2/1 performance. This information will also
be displayed in the feedback section along with the results of their speech rate and listening
partners’ evaluations. The questions are:
• How easy was the topic?
• How interesting was it?
• How do you feel about your performance?
We included these questions because external factors such as topic familiarity andinterest can affect spoken fluency performance. These questions are given to speakers after thethree rounds. In the last photo from the left, users can view a page regarding different strategies
that they can use to improve their spoken fluency performance. They can click on the buttonand view different activities and ideas under each category.
Concerning the final image, users are presented with an informative page delineatinga spectrum of strategies aimed at enhancing their spoken fluency. They can interact with thecontent by clicking on a designated button, revealing an array of activities and ideas organizedby category:• Brainstorming• Vocabulary building53

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）• Meaning-focused mindset• Rehearsing
To fortify students’ monologic fluency on familiar topics, the application suggests thatstudents engage in brainstorming activities. Techniques include creating word webs, providing
a structure for ideas and thoughts, and employing the 5WH method (i.e., discussing the what,
why, where, when, who, and how) to expand original ideas. Vocabulary building emerges asa strategy, wherein students can leverage flashcards featuring topic-specific keywords andemployed phrases. Drawing from a repository of vocabulary utilized by previous students on
the given topic facilitates integration during speech. In this section, the discourse on meaningfocused mindset underscores the significance of fluency over rigid adherence to grammaticalperfection. Addressing the prevailing tendency, particularly in contexts such as Japan, wherean undue emphasis on accuracy can impede intelligibility, students are encouraged throughexplanation on prioritizing effective communication over linguistic precision. The rehearsal
section provides insights into the beneficial effects of pre-task rehearsals on spoken fluency.
Directing students towards solo practice sessions and elucidating the positive impact ofrehearsal on fluency development, this facet of the strategy suite empowers learners to refine
their oral proficiency. In sum, this collection of strategies not only serves as a valuable resource
for individuals seeking to enhance their spoken fluency, but also equips instructors with apedagogical framework to guide students through explicit instruction and activities on thevarious ways to develop spoken fluency.

Upcoming Studies
We are currently undertaking two research studies. First, we have collected over 200
recordings of students’ 1-minute monologues to determine the extent to which the three methodsof data analysis can accurately determine students’ untrimmed speech rate within the classroom
context. The three potential methods are: Apple’s speech-to-text, Whisper X’s speech-to-text,
and pitch detection. With this information, we hope to provide instructors and students withmore information on the reliability of results as well as the ability to contextualize and interpretthe results. In the second research study, we created training videos to help listeners evaluate
their speaking partners’ speeches. We are testing the extent to which listeners are able to rate acertain performance reliably. In other words, we would like to know whether we have createdan evaluation system whereby students can trust the results from listener-based feedback as anauthentic reflection of their spoken fluency ability.

Conclusion
In summary, the evaluation of spoken fluency in the context of L2 learning is recognized54

A Guide to Using a Mobile Application to Track Spoken Fluency

as a complex and challenging endeavor, particularly within classroom settings. This complexity
is compounded by factors such as noise, lack of privacy, and time constraints, making thecollection of data for assessment a formidable task. To date, there is an absence of a MALL
application designed to comprehensively track the various facets of L2 spoken fluency forstudents and provide customized feedback in educational environments. The current situation
at Rikkyo University’s EDC underscores the absence of a quantitative method for instructors
to monitor students’ spoken fluency development throughout the semester, despite the course’s
specific goal of enhancing spoken fluency. We address this gap by presenting an instructionalguide for EDC instructors on how to effectively integrate the mobile application into theirclasses. This innovative approach has the potential to significantly enhance the fluency
development of L2 learners within a structured educational context.

References
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English
Discussion, 1, 2–10.
Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Kermad, A. (2019). The effect of training and rater differences on oral
proficiency assessment. Language Testing, 36(4), 481–504.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219849522
Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach(Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 25–42). The University of Michigan Press.
Maurice, K. (1983). The fluency workshop. TESOL Newsletter, 17(4), 29.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility
in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence
from four L1s. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001010
Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. Routledge.
Ogawa, C. (2022). CAF indices and human ratings of oral performances in an opinion-basedmonologue task. Language Testing in Asia, 12, 4.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00154-9
Rappeneker, J. (2023). English fluency (Version 1.0) [Mobile app]. TestFlight.
https://testflight.apple.com/join/nJmHTaMh
Rossiter, M., Derwing, T., Manimtim, L., & Thomson, R. (2010). Oral Fluency: The Neglected
Component in the Communicative Language Classroom. The Canadian Moden
Language Review–La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 66(4), 583–606.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.4.583
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. Routledge.
55

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203851357
Segalowitz, N. (2016). Second language fluency and its underlying cognitive and social
determinants. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54(2),79–95. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9991
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency
acquisition: Learning Spanish in at-home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104262027
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiationof speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word
recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 369–385.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010845
Sturges, J., Arthurson, D., Itoi, K., Koike, A., & Reid, S. (2023). What’s your opinion?
Interactive skills for effective discussion – Book II (3rd ed.). Rikkyo University.
Suzuki, S., Kormos, J., & Uchihara, T. (2021). The relationship between utterance and perceived
fluency: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. The Modern Language Journal,
105(2), 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12706
Tavakoli, P. (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
Tavakoli, P., & Hunter, A. M. (2018). Is fluency being ‘neglected’ in the classroom? Teacher
understanding of fluency and related classroom practices. Language Teaching Research,
22(3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817708462
Tavakoli, P., & Wright, C. (2020). Second language speech fluency: From research to practice.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589109
Woodward, H., & Gupta, C. (2022). Designing a mobile application to track spoken fluency
development. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research, 3, 160–174.
Woodward, H., & Rappeneker, J. (2023). Prompt-related challenges: Using a mobile application
to measure spoken fluency. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research, 4,
1–27.
Wright, C. (2020). Effects of Task Type on L2 Mandarin Fluency Development. Journal of
Second Language Studies, 3(2), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00010.wri

56