How do Oral Rehearsals and Peer-feedback Affect Monologic
and Dyadic English Speaking Tasks?
Mutsuko Nagasaki, Kristin Armitage, Sunao Orimoto
English Education Center, Institute for Education and Student Support, Ehime University

1. Introduction
1.1. Background of the Studyreflecting on past and possible future performance andlearning behavior” (de Saint Léger, 2009, p. 160). Peerfeedback can also provide valuable input. In fact, some

It is widely acknowledged that using a target

research that explored the role of peer-feedback in L2

language is essential for developing second language

oral presentations found that peer-assessment enhanced(L2) ability, and in fact, the effective roles of output

L2 learners’ motivation to learn (Nejad & Mahfoodh,

and interaction in L2 learning have been supported by

2019), helped increase their confidence, improved their

many empirical studies (e.g., Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-

oral proficiency (Lee, 2017) and helped them learn about

Venture, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007).

making and judging effective presentations (White, 2009).

Output has a crucial role in second language learning as

However, some studies on peer-feedback have pointed

the process of producing and modifying output draws

out that learners will not be able to give appropriate

learners’attention to the form, as well as the meaning

feedback to each other, they will adopt the mistakes ofof a message (Swain, 1995). Communicative tasks andtheir partners, or they will be viewed as arrogant (Barker,

activities that provide learners with opportunities to2004; Hyland, 2004; Philp, Adams, & Iwashita, 2014).

produce output and interact with others are now being

The study outlined in this paper employed repeatedextensively used in the L2 classroom (Littlewood, 2011).

individual and interactive rehearsals outside the

However, outside the classroom, there are very limitedclassroom to analyze what effects different types ofopportunities for Japanese English as a Foreign Language

rehearsals have on different types of oral performances.

(EFL) students to use English in their daily lives.

In addition, what L2 learners noticed through self-review

To solve this problem and create abundantand peer-feedback that they engaged in immediately

opportunities to produce output and interact with others

after speaking was examined to analyze the outcomes ofin English, the authors have employed oral rehearsals

self-review and peer-feedback.

as an out-of-class activity and the effects of doing them
repeatedly have shown that they improve EFL students’

1.2 Previous Research

speaking and communication ability (Nagasaki & Orimoto,Two types of oral rehearsals, individual rehearsals—

2016; Nagasaki, Orimoto, & Armitage, 2019; Nagasaki,

practice speaking alone, and interactive (pair)

Armitage, & Orimoto, 2020).

rehearsals—practice speaking in pairs, were used in the

In addition to output, noticing plays an important part

authors’previous studies to examine their effectivenessin L2 learning (Schmidt, 2001), as it is only when learnersin L2 learning. In 2016 (Nagasaki & Orimoto) and 2019

notice their linguistic problems, they may then be able

(Nagasaki, Orimoto, & Armitage,) the authors examined

to analyze them and attempt to modify their output

the effects of individual rehearsal on a monologic English-

themselves (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Noticing the gap

speaking task on first-year Japanese university students

between what learners can say and what they want to(n=39 in 2016; n=63 in 2019). The results showed thatsay takes place in the interaction between the learnerindividual rehearsal was a significant predictor ofand the surrounding input (Izumi, 2013). This input may

learners’improvement in a speech test in the 2016 study,

be in the form of self-review or peer-feedback. Self-

while it was effective in two different types of tests—

review activities can be “an ongoing dynamic tool fora speech test and a narrative test—in the 2019 study,

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 2022

1

Mutsuko Nagasaki, Kristin Armitage, Sunao Orimoto

indicating that the more L2 learners engage in individual

RQ2: Do oral rehearsals promote L2 speech ability?

oral rehearsals, the more they are likely to improve their

Specifically: a. Does doing only pair rehearsals promotesmonologic speaking ability.

L2 speech ability?, b. Does doing only individual

In the authors’subsequent study (Nagasaki, Armitage,

rehearsals promote L2 speech ability?, c. Does doing both

& Orimoto, 2020) they examined whether, combining

types of rehearsals promote L2 speech ability even more?

individual rehearsals with interactive rehearsals, led tothe development of 60 first-year Japanese university

RQ3: What do L2 learners notice through self-review
and peer-feedback?

students’ communication ability. The results showed,that both individual and interactive rehearsals are

2.2. Participantssignificant predictors of improving students’scores in a

Twenty-four, second- to fourth-year students frompaired conversation test, and different types of rehearsals

two elective English classes in a national Japanesedeveloped different linguistic aspects. Specifically,

university participated in this study. They were taking

interactive rehearsals were likely to improve their scores“Discussion Skills” and/or “Oral Performance” classes.

of starting and ending a conversation (e.g., greetings and

The participants are regarded as having intermediate

small talk) and attitude (e.g., making eye contact) in thelevels of English proficiency because they were enrolledconversation test, whereas individual rehearsals werein a special English course that has pre-requisites of highlikely to improve their scores in expressing ideas andgrades for their required English classes and over 250

vocabulary.

points on the GTEC academic test.

These results provide crucial implications for teaching

The participants were formed into three groups

and learning, namely; that L2 learners can benefit fromand respectively designated as “the Pair (interactive)

both types of rehearsals. However, since the learners

Rehearsal”group (PR, n=13),“the Individual Rehearsal”

in this study engaged in both types of rehearsals in thegroup (IR, n=6), and“the Pair and Individual Rehearsal”

same period of the time, whether doing only interactive

group (PIR, n=5). The students who enrolled in therehearsals or only individual rehearsals promotes L2“Discussion Skills”class were regarded as the PR group

communication ability is unknown.

and taught by one researcher of this study (R1); theThe present study aims to investigate the issues raised

students who enrolled in the“Oral Performance” classin the authors’previous research: that is, whether doing

were considered as the IR group and taught by another

only individual rehearsal can promote monologic speaking

researcher (R3); the students who registered for both(speech) ability as well as L2 communication ability

classes were regarded as the PIR group. As RQ 1c andand whether doing only interactive pair rehearsal can

RQ 2c indicate, it was hypothesized that PIR students

promote these two types of ability. The study also aims

would improve their scores the most since they engaged

to determine what learning opportunities and language

in double the amount of rehearsals compared to PR and

aspects L2 learners attend to when doing self-review and

IR students.

receiving peer-feedback.

Both classes were held fifteen times, once a week for
90 minutes over four months in the same semester.

2. The Study
2.1. Research Questions

2.3 Class activity
2.3.1 Conversation

To examine the effects of the two types of oral

PR and PIR students taking the Discussion Skills

rehearsals more precisely and noticing through self-course were asked to have five different five- to six-

review and peer-feedback, the following research

minute conversations in pairs during the course without

questions were established:looking at any script or notes (Table 1). Two lessons

RQ1: Do oral rehearsals promote L2 communication

before their in-class performance, pairs were randomly

ability? Specifically: a. Does doing only pair rehearsals

set up for every conversation. A group of two to threepromote L2 communication ability?, b. Does doing

pairs was formed for every conversation, and pairs took

only individual rehearsals promote L2 communication

turns performing their conversation in front of the otherability?, c. Does doing both types of rehearsals promote

pair(s).

communication ability even more?
2

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 2022

How do Oral Rehearsals and Peer-feedback Affect Monologic and Dyadic English Speaking Tasks?

Table 1
Data Collection Schedule
In Class
Pair
Individual
Rehearsal
Rehearsal
Week
(PR)
(IR)
Conversation & Speech Pretests
2
4
5
7
9
11
13
15

Conversation 1
Speech 1(Topic 1: Daily Life/Hobbies)
Conversation 2
Speech 2(Topic 2: Memorable Event)
Conversation 3
Speech 3(Topic 3: Academic Interest)
Conversation 4
Speech 4(Topic 4: Career Design)
Conversation 5
Speech 5(Topic 5: Social Issues)
Conversation & Speech
Questionnaire

own scores and comments from everyone in the group in
their LNFs, then reflected on their performances based
Out of Class
Pair
Individual
Rehearsal
Rehearsal(PR)(IR)
PR forConversation
PR forConversation
PR forConversation
PR forConversation
PR forConversation

IR forSpeech 1
IR forSpeech 2
IR forSpeech 3
IR forSpeech 4
IR forSpeech 5

on them, and finally wrote down anything they noticed intheir LNFs. These notes were used to examine what thestudents noticed through peer-feedback.
2.4 Out of class activity
2.4.1 Pair Rehearsal
Both PR and PIR participants in the Discussion
Skills course were required to engage in at least fourinteractive rehearsals in pairs per conversation; therefore,
they were supposed to engage in at least 20, five- to sixminute pair rehearsals during the course as their classassignment. They were encouraged to talk on the phoneor have a face-to-face conversation on campus. Before
interactive rehearsals, the students were allowed to takeabout five to ten minutes to discuss what they were

The students were also instructed to evaluate

going to talk about in pairs and make an outline or notes,

the performance of each student in the other pair(s)if desired. However, they were told not to write any

while observing them, according to the Conversation

sentences or a detailed script for their conversation.

Rubric (Appendix A) that was used to evaluate their

In addition, they were required to video-record one

performances in the conversation pretest and posttest.

of the rehearsed conversations, watch it on their own,

Peer-evaluation followed the same process for all

and write anything they noticed for improvement in

performances. Students were told to give the evaluation

their LNFs. These notes were used to examine what thescores and comments to each speaker of the performing

students noticed through self-review.

pair. Each speaker wrote down their own scores andcomments from everyone in the other pairs in their

2.4.2 Individual Rehearsal

Language Note File (LNF) which had been provided.

The IR and PIR participants in the Oral Performance

Then, based on the scores and comments, the speakers

course were required to orally rehearse a speech atwere required to reflect on their performances and write

least eight times at home; thus, they were supposed todown anything they noticed in their LNFs. These notes

engage in at least 40, two- to three-minute individual

were used to examine what the students noticed throughrehearsals during the course as their class assignment.

peer-feedback.

Before rehearsals at home, they were allowed to takeabout five minutes to consider what they were going

2.3.2 Speech

to talk about on the given topic and make an outline or

The IR students and PIR students taking the Oral

notes, if desired. However, they were told not to write

Performance course were asked to give five different

any sentences or a detailed script for their speeches.

two- to three-minute speeches during the course without

They were required to video-record one of the eightlooking at any script or notes. The topics were the samerehearsals, watch it, and write down what they noticed

as those for paired conversations (Table 1) . A group of

and any findings in their LNFs. These notes were used tothree to four students were formed for every speech,

examine what the students noticed through self-review.

and the students took turns performing their speeches infront of the other students.

2.5 Test Instruments

Students were also instructed to evaluate the speech

Two types of tests, a paired conversation test and aperformance of each student in their group while

speech test were prepared, and the same tests were used

observing it, according to the Speech Rubric (Appendix

for the pretest and posttest. Regarding the conversationB) that was used to evaluate their performances in thetest, the students were randomly paired for each test

speech pretest and posttest. They also wrote down theirand asked to talk about the following question—What

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 2022

3

Mutsuko Nagasaki, Kristin Armitage, Sunao Orimoto

do you think about elementary and junior high school

through peer-feedback, while the latter comments werestudents having a smartphone? —for five to six minutes.

used to examine what they noticed through self-review.

As for the speech test, each student was asked to

Any aspects of language, communication, or speech

express their ideas, in the form of a speech, about thewere regarded as a ‘noticed problem’ (NP) and listed.

following question—English will be taught as a subject inSecond, an iterative qualitative approach was taken, andelementary school from 2020. What do you think about

coding categories were established, by examining student

teaching English as a subject in elementary school? —comments and finding common key words. As a result,for two to three minutes. The students were given

21 categories were established (Table 2) . The number

five minutes preparation time and allowed to do someof comments students wrote down after (1) and (2) wereresearch about the questions using their smartphones.

counted as NPs. Two researchers (R1 and R3) counted

They were also allowed to look at these notes during theand agreed (90.2%), and if disagreement arose, discussion

test.

led to mutually agreed upon classifications.

The pretests were held in the second lesson, and theposttests were conducted in the 15th lesson. All pairs’
conversation performances and everyone’s speech
performances were video-taped for analysis. At the end of
the course a questionnaire was given to the participants
and the responses were reviewed.

3. Analysis
3.1 For RQ1 and RQ2
Two types of assessment rubrics, one for assessing
communication ability (Appendix A) and the other for

Table 2
Examples of NPs in Twenty-One Categories
Greetings & “I should start with greetings like ‘how are you?’”
Closings “Our greetings and closings became smooth and sounded natural.”IndividualContent“I should’ve added more details to my talk.”“I must organize what I’m going to talk about in advance.”

Pair
Content“We should've made a brief outline to what each of us will talk about.”“Both of us should talk more about our memorable event.”

AskingQuestions“I should ask my partner more questions.”“ 5W and IH questions might deepen our conversation.”“I need to use a variety of listener expressions.”
Listener
Expressions “Everyone told me that I could give listener expressions appropriately.”
EnglishFillers“It might be better to use English fillers when I don’t know what to say
next.” “I need to learn more expressions to fill the pause.”

assessing speech ability (Appendix B) were developed for

Negotiation “I’m so happy to hear the compliment, that I asked my partner to clarify hisof M eaning meaning when I couldn’t understand it.”this study. Both consist of six categories and five scales

Vocabulary

and were used to evaluate the participants’performancesin the pretests and posttests.

Pronunciation“It was so difficult to talk about physics in English. I should check more
vocabulary.” “treat someone 食事をふるまう” “autumn leaves 紅葉”“p in phenomena is not pronounced. ”“I’m glad to hear my pronunciation was good.”

The three researchers of this study watched theGrammar“I noticed that my grammar was often incorrect.” “ I was relieved. Not I
relieved,” “Noun or -ing should come after about ~.”recordings of all participants’ conversation and speech

Fluency“I should speak more fluently.” “This time, I could speak fluently.”“There were lots of unnatural pauses and silence.”

performances in the pretests and posttests together
and assessed the performances according to theTask“I finished my speech much earlier. I need to prepare more stories, so that I
Completion can talk fully until time is up .”rubric. Performing this activity together allowed for

Non-verbal “I need to look at my partner’s eyes more when communicating.” “Smilecues
more and be more cheerful.” “My posture was not good.”a significantly high intraclass correlation coefficientThoughts & “I can always rehearse well when I say it in my mind, but I can’t do well
Feelings when rehearsing orally.” “I want to practice speaking more.”(ICC(3,3) = .9558 for the conversation pretest, ICC(3,3)

Changing
the topic= .9380 for the speech pretest, ICC(3,3) = .9141 for theconversation posttest, ICC(3,3) = .9558 for the speech
posttest). Each student’s pretest and posttest scores forboth conversation and speech tests were calculated byobtaining the mean scores from the three assessors.
3.2 For RQ3
To answer the third research question, first, all LNFs
were collected and the students’ reflection comments
they wrote while (1) receiving comments from theirpeers in class and (2) watching their own rehearsal“I was waiting for my partner to change the topic. I should be able tochange it when necessary.” “ That reminds me …”“ I should think more about what to say to my partner while they are
Flow of
Conversation speaking to make our conversation flow smoothly. ”“It is important to make a good atmosphere to facilitate our conversation.”
Atmosphere “I could get a positive comment about the atmosphere of ourconversation.”
Speed“I should speak more slowly to have my partner understand.” “Myspeaking speed was good, I think.”

Voice“I should have spoken louder.” “I could increase the volume of my voice.”“The volume of my voice was changing. I always need to speak clearly.”

M aking
pauses
M emo“I should make pauses to check if my partner could understand me.” “Itmight be important to make pauses intentionally to avoid making amonotonous speech.”“It was difficult to give a speech without looking at a memo.” “I shouldlook at the memo less.” “It’s better to write down some key points in amemo.”

Note. NP = Noticed Problem; Words translated fromJapanese into English are italicized.

performances at home were reviewed. The former
comments were used to examine what they noticed
4

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 2022

How do Oral Rehearsals and Peer-feedback Affect Monologic and Dyadic English Speaking Tasks?

the PIR group improved greatly, compared to PR and

4. Results

IR. However, due to the limited number of participants

4.1 RQ1: Do oral rehearsals promote L2 communicationin the present study, further statistical analysis toability?

examine the effectiveness among groups could not be

Table 3 shows the mean scores of the conversation

conducted; hence, the significant effectiveness of PIR for

pretests and posttests. All groups, PR, IR, and PIR

improving speech ability is not statistically supported.

improved their scores, specifically, PR increased 3.6

As hypothesized, the fact that PIR students engaged inpoints; IR: 4.3; PIR: 3.6. Although statistical analysis

about twice as many rehearsals as those in PR and IR

could not be used to further examine whether themight have contributed to their larger improvement.

improvement within groups is significant due to the small

The relatively lower pretest scores of PIR than those ofsample size, it was found that 11 out of 13 students in

PR and IR might have been the cause as well. Regarding

PR and all students in both IR and PIR improved their

the results for the six categories in the speech (Table 6),scores from the pretest to the posttest. Therefore, it can

all groups could improve their scores from the pretest to

be said that the answers for RQ1. a and b turned out tothe posttest.

be affirmative. Concerning RQ1. c, the PIR group did not
improve any more than PR and IR; hence, it turned out tobe negative. In terms of the results for the six categories
in the conversation (Table 4), all groups could improvetheir scores from the pretest to the posttest.

Table 3
Conversation Test Scores
PR (n=13)
IR (n=6)
PIR (n=5)Pretest
M
SD
20.6
3.3
22.1
2.3
19.6
2.1

Posttest
M
SD
24.2
3.0
26.4
1.8
23.2
1.8

Note. Maximum score was 30 in both tests; M = mean; SD= standard deviation.

Table 4
Conversation Test Scores in all Categories
PR
PretestPosttest
M SD M SD
Opinion/Quantity 3.63 0.37 4.11 0.65
Opinion/Quality 3.31 0.62 4.01 0.50
Production
3.29 0.73 3.92 0.53
Flow
3.44 0.72 3.91 0.64
Vocabulary
3.44 0.51 4.13 0.39
Attitude3.51 0.65 4.09 0.59

IRPretestPosttest
M SD M SD
3.89 0.12 4.67 0.20
3.66 0.40 4.36 0.40
3.61 0.57 4.31 0.47
3.69 0.55 4.33 0.33
3.67 0.44 4.42 0.37
3.53 0.49 4.31 0.26

PIR
Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
3.53 0.57 3.83 0.26
3.10 0.54 3.77 0.34
3.13 0.29 3.77 0.48
3.17 0.28 3.97 0.25
3.17 0.33 3.87 0.29
3.53 0.22 3.97 0.32

Note. Maximum score was 5 in both tests; M = mean; SD= standard deviation.
4.2 RQ2: Do oral rehearsals promote speech ability?

Table 5
Speech Test Scores
PR (n=13)
IR (n=6)
PIR (n=5)Pretest
M
SD
20.2
2.8
20.2
3.4
18.0
1.8

Posttest
M
SD
22.4
3.0
22.5
3.4
22.2
2.0

Note. Maximum score was 30 in both tests; M = mean; SD= standard deviation.

Table 6
Speech Test Scores in all Categories

Vocabulary
Pronunciation
Fluency
Content
Grammar
Attitude

PR
PretestPosttest
M SD M SD
3.45 0.54 3.81 0.54
3.31 0.62 3.63 0.56
3.23 0.45 3.74 0.51
3.36 0.46 3.79 0.49
3.54 0.54 3.72 0.52
3.33 0.60 3.76 0.50

IRPretestPosttest
M SD M SD
3.69 0.59 3.81 0.54
3.39 0.72 3.72 0.63
3.28 0.65 3.81 0.52
3.31 0.64 3.72 0.64
3.44 0.52 3.75 0.55
3.14 0.55 3.78 0.56

PIR
Posttest
PretestM SD M SD
3.00 0.28 3.76 0.28
2.97 0.12 3.53 0.46
2.97 0.44 3.73 0.37
3.13 0.39 3.73 0.31
3.07 0.23 3.63 0.31
2.87 0.64 3.80 0.49

Note. Maximum score was 5 in both tests; M = mean; SD= standard deviation.
Interestingly, these results indicate that (1) practicing
speaking on their own for a speech can promote L2
communication ability, (2) practicing speaking with apartner for a conversation can promote L2 speech ability,(3) doing only one type of rehearsal benefits learners asmuch as doing both types.

Table 5 shows the mean scores of the speechpretests and posttests and indicates that the PR, IR,

4.3 RQ3: What do students notice through self-review

and PIR groups improved their scores. Specifically, aand peer-feedback?

2.2 point increase in PR; 2.3 in IR; 4.2 in PIR. Moreover,4.3.1 Noticing after paired conversation rehearsal andall students in PR, five out of six in IR, and all in PIRclass performance.

improved their scores from the pretest to the posttest.

Table 7 shows the number of NPs (noticed problems)

Therefore, the answer for RQ2 a, b, turned out to bethat the PR and PIR students wrote in their LNFs whileaffirmative. In addition, it appeared the mean scores ofengaging in self-review after their paired conversation

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 20225

were comments, such as“I want to make more effort todevelop my conversation ability”and“I think all I can
do is to practice”. Peer-feedback also seemed to help
learners realize the importance of managing the flow ofconversation with their partner.
4.3.2 Noticing after speech rehearsal and classperformance.
Table 8 shows the number of NPs that the IR and PIR
students wrote in their LNFs while doing self-review
after their speech rehearsal out of class as well as while
receiving peer-feedback after their speech performance inclass. The five categories they noticed the most through

190
100
177
100

TC NC T&F CT Flow Atm Sp Vo MP Me Total

228
100
204
100

Notes: GSC=Greetings, Small talk, Closings, IC=Individual Content, PC=Pair Content, AQ=Asking Questions,
LE=Listener Expressions, EF=English Fillers, NM=Negotiation of Meaning, V=Vocabulary, P=Pronunciation,
G=Grammar, F=Fluency, TC=Task Completion, NC=Non-verbal Cues, T&F=Thoughts and Feelings,
CT=Changing the Topic naturally, Flow= Flow of conversation, Atm=Atmosphere, Sp=Speed, Vo=Voice,
MP=Making Pauses, Me=Memo

inner thoughts such as motivation. For example, thereF

On the other hand, peer-feedback seemed to affect theirG

the Vocabulary and Individual Content NPs were high.

P

It appears that students were more concerned withthe content of their conversation during self-review as

GSC IC PC AQ LE EF NM V

and Flow of conversation (9.8%).

0 25 0 0 0 2 0 42 11 7 13 17 23 20 0 0 1 7 10 1 11
Selfreview % 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 22.1 5.8 3.7 6.8 8.9 12.1 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.7 5.3 0.5 5.8
0 34 0 4 0 1 0 15 13 6 4 8 30 25 1 0 0 6 16 9 5Peerfeedback % 0.0 19.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 8.5 7.3 3.4 2.3 4.5 16.9 14.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 3.4 9.0 5.1 2.8

Non-verbal Cues (11.3%), Listener Expressions (10.8%),

Table 8 Noticed Problems for Self-review and Peer-feedback for Speech

Thoughts & Feelings (13.7%), Asking Questions (11.3%),

F

while through peer-feedback, they wrote down about

G

Asking Questions (9.2%), and Listener Expressions (8.3%),

P(18%), Non-verbal Cues (11%), Individual Content (10.1%),

GSC IC PC AQ LE EF NM V

The top five NPs through self-review were Vocabulary

5 23 12 21 19 5 1 41 2 3 14 2 25 13 7 9 12 3 9 2 0
Selfreview % 2.2 10.1 5.3 9.2 8.3 2.2 0.4 18.0 0.9 1.3 6.1 0.9 11.0 5.7 3.1 3.9 5.3 1.3 3.9 0.9 0.0
3 9 8 23 22 2 4 18 2 3 9 2 23 28 5 20 8 5 9 1 0
Peerfeedback % 1.5 4.4 3.9 11.3 10.8 1.0 2.0 8.8 1.0 1.5 4.4 1.0 11.3 13.7 2.5 9.8 3.9 2.5 4.4 0.5 0.0

feedback after their conversation performances in class.

Table 7 Noticed Problems for Self-review and Peer-feedback for Conversation

practice out of class as well as while receiving peer-

TC NC T&F CT Flow Atm Sp Vo MP Me Total

Mutsuko Nagasaki, Kristin Armitage, Sunao Orimoto

self-review were Vocabulary (22.1%), Individual Content(13.2%), Non-verbal Cues (12.1%), Thoughts & Feelings(10.5%), and Task Completion (8.9%). After considering

5. Discussion

what their peers thought, the top five categories of NPs

Although the authors’ previous study (Nagasaki,

were Individual Content (19.2%), Non-verbal Cues (16.9%),

Armitage, & Orimoto, 2020) claimed that learners should

Thoughts & Feelings (14.1%), Voice (9%), and Vocabulary

engage in both types of rehearsals because they promote(8.5%).

the development of different aspects of L2 communication,

Although students cared about the content of their

the present study found that doing only one type of

conversations while doing self-review, they did not carerehearsal can improve both dialogic (conversation) andabout it much while receiving peer-feedback in a pairedmonologic (speech) speaking abilities. There are several

conversation. However, students who gave speeches

explanations for this finding.

seemed to be quite concerned about the content during

First, there are many learner and contextual factors,

both self-review (13.2%) and peer-feedback (19.2%), assuch as task type, setting, learner proficiency, age, andIndividual Content percentages show (Table 8).

pair dynamics that can shape the success of interaction

Hence, it can be assumed that peer-feedback for a

for L2 development (Philp, Adams, & Iwashita, 2014).

conversation helped L2 learners mainly reflect on the

In this study, it seems that the proficiency of learners

non-linguistic features (e.g., non-verbal cues, flow of a

had a much bigger impact than task type and enabledconversation) of a conversation but peer-feedback for a

the current study’s participants to apply what theyspeech encouraged learners to notice both the content

had learned from practicing for a speech on their own,

and non-linguistic features.

into positive gains conversing with their partner. Also,
the participants of this study were enrolled in a special

6

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 2022

How do Oral Rehearsals and Peer-feedback Affect Monologic and Dyadic English Speaking Tasks?

elective English course and had already completed therequired first-year course (the previous study participants
were first-year students).
Second, receiving extensive peer-feedback might
have contributed to the results. It helped learners
increase their awareness of what they needed to work
on to improve their conversation and/or speech. In the

References
Barker, D. (2004). Encouraging students to take their language
learning outside the classroom. JALT Hokkaido Journal, 8, 879886.
de Saint Léger, D. (2009). Self-assessment of speaking skills andparticipation in a foreign language class. Foreign Language
Annals, 42(1), 158-178

questionnaire distributed at the end of the course, almost

Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualizing out-

all participants wrote that peer-feedback clarified theof-class English language learning. Language Awareness 13,

points they needed to work on for further improvement180-202.

or helped them notice something that they could not

158-178.

realize when working on their own (c.f., Barker, 2014;

Izumi, S. (2013). Noticing and L2 development: Theoretical,

Hyland, 2004; Philp et al., 2014). They also appreciatedempirical, and pedagogical issues. In J. M. Bergsleithner, S.

peer feedback because “other students are objective”,

N. Frota, & K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language

and many also stated, it motivated them, in the sense of

acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 37-50).

initiating modifications themselves, to practice more. In

Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language

addition, giving feedback to others helped all students
develop a deeper understanding of the rubric as they had
to refer to it many times while giving feedback. Thus,
just doing one type of rehearsal might have been effective
enough to develop L2 communication and speech abilities.

Resource Center.
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Venture, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S.
(2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based
interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In J.
M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language
learning and teaching (pp.91-131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lee, Y. (2017). Sharing peer feedback: How does it affect

6. Conclusion
The results of this study revealed that interactive
rehearsals for a conversation can prompt L2
communication ability as well as L2 speech ability andindividual rehearsals for a speech also prompt both.
Therefore, the results imply that learners’engaging in

EFL learners’oral presentation skills? Asian-pacific Journalof Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, andSociology, 7, 307-322.
Littlewood, W. (2011). Communicative language teaching: An
expanding concept for a changing world. In E. Hinkle (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning:
Volume II (pp. 541-558), New York, NY: Routledge.

either type of rehearsal can develop L2 communication

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A

and speech abilities. However, the results may havemeta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.),

been impacted by the participants’ higher English

Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, (pp.

proficiency and motivation aroused through classmates’

407-452). Oxford University Press.

encouragement. In addition, due to the small sample size,

Nagasaki, M., & Orimoto, S. (2016). Effects of oral rehearsal on

any statistical analysis to examine the effects of rehearsal

L2 speaking improvement. JACET Chugoku-Shikoku Chapter

types within groups and between groups could not be

Bulletin, 13, 53-70.

conducted. Hence, future research with more participantsof different proficiencies and motivation is necessary
to further investigate the potential of interactive andindividual oral rehearsals.

Nagasaki, M., Orimoto, S., & Armitage, K. (2019). The
contribution of noticing and self-modification throughrepetitive oral output to second language learners’monologic speaking performances. JACET Chugoku-Shikoku
Chapter Bulletin, 16, 103-120.
Nagasaki, M., Armitage, K., & Orimoto, S. (2020). The benefits

Acknowledgment
This study is part of a project supported by JSPS
KAKENHI Grant Number 18K00871.

of interactive and individual rehearsals for developing
second language communicative ability. RELC Journal. Online
first. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220901348
Nejad, A. M., & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2019). Assessment oforal presentation: Effectiveness of self-, peer-, and teacher
assessments. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 615-632.

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 2022

7

Mutsuko Nagasaki, Kristin Armitage, Sunao Orimoto
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction andsecond language learning. New York: Routledge.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition andsecond language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language
learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle andpractice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G.
Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and thecognitive processes they generate: A step towards second
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
White, W. (2009). Student perspectives of peer assessment
for learning in a public speaking course. Asian EFL JournalProfessional Teaching Articles, 33, 1-36.

8

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 2022

How do Oral Rehearsals and Peer-feedback Affect Monologic and Dyadic English Speaking Tasks?

Appendix A
Conversation Rubric

Expressing opinions(Quality)

Expressing opinions(Quantity)

Overall Goal: Speakers can express their opinions and agree/disagree with others logically and fluently.

Goals:Can fully express opinions byadding appropriate detailed
information.

Goals:Can fully express opinions withclear, logical, and persuasive
reasons/examples.

Production(Fluency & Pronunciation)
Maintaining the flow of conversation
Vocabulary & Phrases

2: Developing (2.0)
Expresses a few opinions.

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)
Expresses some opinions.

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)
Expresses enough opinions.

Gives a little information to
explain the opinions.

Gives some information to explain Gives enough information tothe opinions.
explain the opinions.

1: Under performing (1.0)
2: Developing (2.0)
3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)
4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)
Gives some reasons/examples, but Gives some reasons/examples, but Gives some reasons/examples, but Gives mostly clear and logicalthey are not clear and/or logical, they are not very clear and/or
some of them might not be clear reasons/examples.
so they severely affect listeners' logical, so they cause occasional and/or logical but could be
misunderstanding for listeners(assessors') understanding.
understood by listeners
Some reasons/examples are(assessors).
(assessors).
persuasive.

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)
Fully expresses opinions.
Gives a lot of information.

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)
Overall, gives very clear andlogical reasons/examples.
Overall, reasons/examples arevery persuasive.

A few reasons/examples are
persuasive.

Goals:Can speak smoothly at a pacewhich is suitable for listeners.

Attitude1: Under performing (1.0)
Almost no opinions.

Can speak with natural
pronunciation, intonation, andrhythm.

Goals:Can maintain a good flow ofconversation and achieve mutual
understanding by using
appropriate communication
skills/strategies.

1: Under performing (1.0)

2: Developing (2.0)

The speech is mostly halting with Speech production is slow.
long unnatural pauses.

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)

Speech production is fairlysmooth but a little slow.

Speech production is fairlysmooth and rapid.

Generally uses good pronunciation Uses natural pronunciation,and natural rhythm andrhythm, and intonation clear
intonation, which could beenough to be understood with noeffort by all listeners.
understood by listeners(assessors) who are unfamiliar
with Japanese learners.

Speech production is smooth andappropriate.

A lot of mispronunciation, andalmost no natural rhythm andproper intonation, which affects
listener comprehension greatly.

Occasional mispronunciation
and unnatural rhythm andintonation that may cause
misunderstanding for listeners(assessors).

Pronunciation, rhythm, andintonation are good enough to beunderstood by those (assessors)
who are accustomed to dealing
with Japanese learners ofEnglish.

1: Under performing (1.0)
Conversation exchanges aremostly halting with many
unnatural hesitations or longpauses.

2: Developing (2.0)
Conversation exchanges often
stop and there are many
unnatural hesitations or longpauses.

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)
4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)
Conversation exchanges are
Conversation exchanges aresmooth to some extent due to the generally smooth due to the use
use of communication strategies*. of communication strategies*.

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)
Conversation exchanges are verysmooth and natural due to theuse of communication strategies*.

Some unnatural pauses orhesitations are apparent, but they
do not reduce listeners'(assessors') attentiveness.

Pauses are effectively used toenhance the discussion.

Mostly natural pauses areapparent.

*Communication Strategies: fillers, listener expressions**, natural repetitions, rephrasing, paraphrasing, turn-taking expressions, negotiation of meaning, oragreeing/disagreeing with others.

**Listener expressions include: Uh(Ah)-huh / Yes / I see / Me too / Right / Sounds good / Great! (e.g., Wow / Amazing / Wonderful / Awesome ..) That's great! /I know what you mean. / Sure. / Too bad. / I'm sorry to hear that. / Really? / I can't believe it! / You're kidding. etc...

1: Under performing (0.5/1.0)
2: Developing (2.0)
3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)
Goals:
Uses a very limited range ofUses a limited range ofUses some range of vocabulary
Can use a range of vocabulary and vocabulary and phrases to express vocabulary and phrases to express and phrases to express ideas andideas and opinions.
ideas and opinions.
opinions.
phrases.
Can use vocabulary and phrases
appropriately according to thecontext and situation.

Makes many major mistakesthat prevented comprehension.

Makes some mistakes that mightcause misunderstanding forlisteners who are not accustomed
to dealing with Japaneselearners of English.

1: Under performing (1.0)
2: Developing (2.0)
Goals:
A few appropriate non-verbal
Can use non-verbal
Almost no appropriate use ofcommunication skills such as non- non-verbal cues and paralanguage. cues and paralanguage are used.
verbal cues* and paralanguage**
A few major inappropriate
effectively and appropriately.
cues/gestures may be apparent(e.g., voice is not loud enoughthroughout the speech, or it
frequently affects listener's
comprehension and/or
attentiveness).

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)
5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)
Uses a good variety ofUses a wide variety ofvocabulary and phrases to express vocabulary and phrases well to
express ideas and opinions.
ideas and opinions.

Effectively uses vocabulary and
Makes some mistakes that might Generally uses appropriatecause confusion to listeners, but is vocabulary, but may make minor phrases in the context andmistakes that do not affectsituation naturally.
understandable with someeffort.
comprehension.

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)

Non-verbal cues areappropriately used some of thetime.

Non-verbal cues areappropriately used most of thetime.

Non-verbal cues are effectively
used to enhance the speech.

Paralanguage is appropriately
used some of the time.

Paralanguage is appropriately
used most of the time.

Paralanguage is effectively used
to enhance the speech.

*Non-verbal cues include: eye-contact, gestures, positioning, and facial expressions.
** Paralanguage here includes: volume of voice and emotional tone.

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 2022

9

Mutsuko Nagasaki, Kristin Armitage, Sunao Orimoto

Appendix B
Speech Rubric
Overall Goal: Speakers can express their opinions about a social issue clearly, logically, and fluently.

Pronunciation, Rhythm, & Intonation

Vocabulary & Phrases

Goals:Can use a range of vocabulary
and phrases.

Can use vocabulary and phrases Makes many major mistakes
appropriately according to thethat prevent comprehension.
context and situation.

Goals:Can speak with natural
pronunciation, intonation, andrhythm.

Fluency
Content & Organization
Grammar

1: Under performing (1.0)
Uses a lot of incorrect
pronunciation and has a strong
accent, which affects listenercomprehension greatly.
Uses almost no natural English
rhythm or proper intonation.

Goals:Can speak smoothly at a pacewhich is suitable for listeners.
Listeners can easily understandthe speaker.

2: Developing (2.0)

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)

1: Under performing (0.5/1.0)

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)

Makes many mistakes that cause Makes some mistakes that
Generally uses appropriate
misunderstanding for listeners.
cause some confusion to listeners, vocabulary, but may make somebut is understandable with some minor mistakes that do noteffort.
affect comprehension.

2: Developing (2.0)

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)

Generally uses pronunciation
Uses a mixture of Japanese andwell enough to be understood
English pronunciation but goodenough to be understood byby listeners who are unfamiliar
listeners who are accustomed to with Japanese learners ofdealing with Japanese learners
English.
Uses quite unnatural rhythm and of English.
intonation which could lead toGenerally uses natural rhythm
and intonation.
occasional misunderstanding by Uses quite natural rhythm andthe listener.
intonation that can be understoodwith some effort by the listener.

Uses several words that are
mispronounced and/or a strong
accent that cause occasional
misunderstanding for listeners.

2: Developing (2.0)

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)

Uses a good variety ofUses a wide variety ofvocabulary and phrases to express vocabulary and phrases well to
express ideas and opinions.
ideas and opinions.

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)

Effectively uses vocabulary andphrases in the context andsituation naturally.

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)
Natural and clear pronunciation.
Uses natural rhythm andintonation.

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)

Speech production is fairly
Speech production is fairly
Speech production is smooth and
The speech is mostly halting with Speech production is slow.
smooth but a little slow.
smooth and rapid.
appropriate.
long unnatural pauses.
Many unnatural hesitations andlong pauses which occasionally Some unnatural hesitations and A few unnatural hesitations and Most hesitations and pauses
The speaker often exhibts false
starts or repeats words over and affect listener comprehension
pauses that do not affect listener pauses that do not affect listener occur at appropriate places that
and/or reduces listener's
comprehension very much.
comprehension.
over, which greatly affects
maximize the impact of thelistener comprehension and/or
speech.
attentiveness.
reduces listener's attentiveness.

1: Under performing (1.0)
Goals:Can talk about their thoughts
Almost no logical structure.
clearly and coherently and ordertheir main points logically.

Very little logical structure,
little use of simple cohesive
devices.

Several problems with structure Good logical structure,
Excellent logical structure.
but still understandable. Some use demonstrated by fairly strong unity Consistent use of appropriateof cohesive devices.
cohesive devices.
and cohesion.

Can give supporting ideas andAlmost no clear expression ofreasons to support their opinion ideas and opinions.
using specific examples.

Very few ideas and opinions,
lacking concrete examples orreasons.

Ideas and opinions are notentirely clear, with only a few
concrete examples or reasons.

Goals:
Appropriate mixture of simple
sentences, compound
sentences and complex
sentences.
Can use grammar accurately(control of tense, pronouns,
subject, and verb agreement).

Goals:Can demonstrate non-verbal
skills such as non-verbal cues*and paralanguage** effectively
and appropriately.

Attitude1: Under performing (1.0)

Uses some range of vocabulary
Uses a very limited range ofUses a limited range ofvocabulary and phrases to express vocabulary and phrases to express and phrases to express ideas andideas and opinions.
opinions.
ideas and opinions.

1: Under performing (1.0)
Very few full sentences. Mostly
uses only single words andphrases.

2: Developing (2.0)

2: Developing (2.0)
Uses only simple sentences.
Little control of basic grammar.

Hardly any control of basic
grammar.

1: Under performing (1.0)

2: Developing (2.0)

A few appropriate non-verbal
Almost no appropriate use ofnon-verbal cues and paralanguage. cues and paralanguage are used.
A few major inappropriate
cues/gestures may be apparent(e.g., voice is not loud enoughthroughout the speech, or it
frequently affects listener's
comprehension and/or
attentiveness).

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)

Ideas and opinions are clear with Ideas and opinions are clear withsome concrete examples ora lot of concrete and effective
reasons.
examples or reasons.

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)

Uses mostly simple sentences
along with a few compound andcomplex sentences.

Uses mostly simple sentences
along with some compound andcomplex sentences.

Some control of grammar.

Generally has good control ofgrammar.

Uses an appropriate mixture of
simple sentences, compound
sentences, and complex
sentences.
Has good control of grammar
throughout the speech.

3: Satisfactory (2.5/3.0)

4: Accomplished (3.5/4.0)

5: Exemplary (4.5/5.0)

Non-verbal cues areappropriately used some of thetime.

Non-verbal cues areappropriately used most of thetime.

Non-verbal cues are effectively
used to enhance the speech.

Paralanguage is appropriately
used some of the time.

Paralanguage is appropriately
used most of the time.

Paralanguage is effectively used
to enhance the speech.

*Non-verbal cues include: eye-contact, gestures, positioning, and facial expressions.
** Paralanguage here includes: volume of voice and emotional tone.

10

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第21号 2022