The Benefits of Interactive and Individual Rehearsals for Developing Second Language Communicative Ability

Abstract

The present study examined whether oral interactive (pair) rehearsals and individual rehearsals promote second language (L2) learners’ communication ability. The participants were 60 first-year students from two required English classes at a national university in Japan. One class was designated as ‘the compulsory rehearsal’ group (CR, n=28); the other as ‘the free rehearsal’ group (FR, n=32). In class, participants engaged in a five-minute conversation in pairs five times on different topics during the course, while at home, they were required (CR) or encouraged (FR) to engage in two interactive rehearsals with a partner and five individual rehearsals per conversation. Pre- and post-conversation tests were conducted in pairs, and each student’s performance was assessed using a rubric developed for this study. Multiple regression analysis showed that the frequencies of both an interactive rehearsal and an individual rehearsal were significant predictors of the students’ improvement in the conversation test (R2 = .304, Interactive Rehearsal: β = .37, p < .05, Individual Rehearsal: β = .39, p < .05). It also revealed that interactive rehearsals helped learners improve their L2 communicative ability, while individual rehearsals were likely to improve their ability to express their ideas.

Keywords

Pair Rehearsals Individual Rehearsals L2 Communicative Ability Collaborative Modification Noticing

Introduction

It is an accepted fact that using a target language improves learners’ second language (L2) ability. However, once Japanese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students leave the classroom, they have little opportunity to interact in English in their normal daily lives due to the limited availability of native speakers of English (NS). Using other learners as a valuable linguistic resource could be one solution to this problem. In a study of 61 English as a second language (ESL) learners from 12 different language backgrounds and at four different proficiency levels, Baker, Cundick, Evans, Henrichsen and Dewey (2012) found there was a positive relationship between the use of English and increased proficiency, even when students interacted with nonnative speakers. As the authors showed, abundant experience of using the target language seemed to help L2 learners develop their proficiency. A meta-analyses of major interaction studies (Keck et al., 2006; Mackey and Goo, 2007) also revealed the overall positive effects of interaction on learning of some specific grammatical forms or vocabulary when learners interacted with others.

For an EFL classroom where most of the communication tasks need to be conducted between peers, what learning environment or outcomes learner-learner interactions create is a significant question. Studies such as Pica et al. (1996) and Garcia-Mayo and Pica (2000) which compared NS-learner interactions and learner-learner interactions found that the former provides a richer learning environment concerning feedback (correction). Although Mackey, Oliver and Leeman (2003) showed that learners are more likely to incorporate feedback from their peers into their production than that from a NS, many learners struggle with peer-peer interaction, because they fear that their skills are limited, they will not be able to give appropriate feedback, they will adopt the mistakes of their partners, or they will be viewed as arrogant (Barker, 2004; Hyland, 2004; Philp et al., 2014). However, in some environments peers provide a ‘safe’ place to experiment and try out language without a focus on accuracy (Philp et al., 2014). In fact, Sato and Lyster (2007) found that learners modified their utterances more frequently when interacting with each other than with a NS because they felt more comfortable asking questions of each other about incomprehensible utterances and felt less pressure.

One way to facilitate peer interactions in the classroom is to have learners work on a task collaboratively in pairs or groups. Many empirical studies (e.g. Storch, 2002; Adams, 2007) found that collaborative peer work prompted active interaction and reflection on language use while learners are engaging in tasks. In fact, learners ‘use language to learn language’ (Swain and Suzuki, 2008: 565).

It is pedagogically meaningful to be aware of what benefits more learning, collaborative work or individual work; however, it might be even more crucial to know what learning environment and outcomes each type of work produces, as the authors of this study assume that their roles in L2 learning would be different. The author’s previous studies (Nagasaki and Orimoto, 2016; Nagasaki, Orimoto and Armitage, 2019) examined the effects of individual work, in the form of oral rehearsals (practise speaking alone), on the monologic English speaking improvement of first-year Japanese university students (n=39 in 2016; n=63 in 2019). Students were required to give eight different speeches in class during the course and asked to orally rehearse at least five times for each speech at home without writing any detailed scripts. To determine whether oral rehearsals contributed to improving students’ speaking abilities, speaking pretests and postests consisting of two tests – a speech test and a narrative test were conducted. Each learner’s speaking performance on the tests was assessed based on a rubric consisting of five categories – vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, content, and grammar. As a result, the former study found that oral rehearsal was a significant predictor of improvement for the speech test, while the latter study in which the assessment rubric was changed to increase its validity, found that it was true for both types of tests.

In addition, the more students orally rehearsed, the more their scores on vocabulary were likely to improve in the former study, while their scores on vocabulary and content were likely to improve in the latter study. This correlated with the high number of vocabulary notes (34.5% in 2016; 41.7% in 2019) and content notes (20.8% in 2016; 17.4% in 2019) that students noticed and wrote down after rehearsals. These results indicate that individual work for speaking seems to draw learners’ attention to the meaning they want to deliver

The most significant finding of the authors’ previous studies is that repetitive individual speaking practice promotes L2 monologic speaking ability. Regarding the effectiveness of repetitive peer interactions, Lynch and Maclean (2000; Lynch and Maclean, 2001) also found that repetitive peer interactions promoted ESL learners’ self-modification. In their study, learners engaged in a poster carousel task where they had one-to-one interaction with another member of class to respond to questions about the poster, and this process was immediately repeated six times. The study found that repetitive peer interactions facilitated learners’ attention to form and prompted them to produce more accurate L2 forms in successive sessions. These studies show that abundant opportunities of speaking the target language both individually and collaboratively contribute to L2 learning to some extent. However, whether repetitive individual and interactive speaking practices promote learners’ oral communication ability is unknown.

The present study attempted to increase the opportunities of using English by combining a conversation in class and two types of oral rehearsals at home: interactive oral rehearsals (practising speaking in pairs) and individual oral rehearsals (practise speaking alone) and investigated whether they led to the development of students’ communication ability. It also examined what learning outcomes each type of rehearsal offers to students.

Research Questions

Two research questions were generated:

What do L2 learners notice through interactive rehearsals and individual rehearsals?

Do interactive rehearsals and individual rehearsals improve learners’ L2 communication ability?

Method

Participants

The participants were 60 first-year Japanese students from two compulsory English speaking classes at a national university in Japan. The classes were part of the compulsory first-year curriculum, so basic class components such as the syllabus, aims, and the textbook were identical, and lessons were held twice a week for 90 minutes during an eight-week quarter. The two classes were respectively designated as ‘the compulsory rehearsal’ group (CR, n=28) and ‘the free rehearsal’ group (FR, n=32).¹ The GTEC Academic test (Benesse Corporation) was given to students, and the mean scores were 218.11 (SD=34.76) for the CR group and 201.12 (SD=38.59) for the FR group.² Therefore, the proficiency level of the CR group is higher than that of the FR group. Both groups were taught by the same researcher of this study (R1).³

Research Design

Class Focus

The speaking course syllabus has the following goal: ‘Students will be able to clearly and confidently express their thoughts and opinions, in some detail, about familiar topics and things of general interest, with other students, for five minutes in English’. Every lesson focusses on a specific aspect of language use, or skill, and topic to meet the goal (Table 1). For example, in Lesson 3, the concept of forming a basic conversation – asking questions, answering, and adding information (AAA) – are taught and practised, in pairs and groups, through a variety of tasks and activities about the topic of ‘hometown.’ In addition, the speaking course focusses on basic conversational structure; greetings, small talk, and closings (GSC), expressing ideas and thoughts, asking questions, taking turns, giving listener expressions, negotiating for meaning, and using non-verbal cues, which students are expected to use while communicating with others in English.

Table 1.

Lesson Focus and Data Collection Schedule for the Study during the Course.

		Class
Lesson	Language Focus	Topic & Activity	Home
1		Class OrientationTopic: Getting to know classmates
2		PretestTopic: Chatting
3	Answering, adding info, andasking a follow-up question	Orientation on rehearsal assignmentTopic: Hometown	Rehearsal: Hometown
4	Greetings, ClosingsMaking small talk	GTEC test
5	Fillers, Listener expressionsTurn-taking expressions	Conversation 1 : HometownTopic: Favorite Things	Rehearsal: Favorite ThingsOR
6	Asking questions (Information questions)	Topic: Daily Life	Daily Life
7	Telling a story chronologically	Conversation 2 : Favorite Things or Daily LifeTopic: Memorable Event	Rehearsal: MemorableEvent
8	Talking about the past and future	Topic: Traveling	ORTraveling
9	Explaining plots and thoughts	Conversation 3 : Memorable Event or TravelingTopic: Entertainment	Rehearsal: EntertainmentOR
10	Agreeing and disagreeing	Topic: Opinions	Opinions
11	Expressing ideas and thoughts	Conversation 4 : Entertainment or OpinionsTopic: Social Issues	Rehearsal: Any topic
12	Non-verbal cues and gestures	Conversation 5 : Any topic
13	Review
14		Postest
15		Postest

Class Activity – Conversation

Five times during the course, all students were asked to perform a five-minute conversation in class, in pairs, without looking at any script or notes (Table 1). Two lessons before their in-class performance, pairs were randomly set up for every conversation. The topic of each conversation was based on the topic of the previous lesson. For example, if the third lesson’s topic was ‘hometown’, the students engaged in a conversation about their hometown, in pairs, during the fifth lesson of the class. Students were asked to perform the topic of their choice that was covered during the previous week in class for the next three conversations and could choose their own topic for the last conversation.

A group of three pairs was formed for every conversation, and they took turns to perform in front of the other pairs. Their conversations were videotaped. The students were also instructed to evaluate the performance of each student in other pairs while observing it, according to the assessment rubric (Appendix A) used to evaluate their speaking performances in the pretest and postest.

Out of Class Activity – Rehearsals

The participants engaged in two types of oral rehearsal; interactive rehearsals and individual rehearsals. CR participants were required to do at least two interactive rehearsals and five individual rehearsals per conversation; therefore, they were supposed to engage in at least 25 individual rehearsals and at least 10 interactive oral rehearsals during the course. Rehearsals were set as a graded assignment, and points were given according to the frequency of rehearsals. FR participants were not required but encouraged to do as many interactive and individual rehearsals as they liked. In the FR group, the same number of points was allocated to different homework.

Instruction about how to conduct both types of oral rehearsals was given in the third lesson. Concerning interactive rehearsals, the participants were asked to practise a conversation for at least five minutes with their partner face-to-face (e.g. meeting on campus) or talking on the phone. Before interactive rehearsals, all students, regardless of which experimental group they belonged to, were allowed to take five to ten minutes to discuss what they were going to talk about in pairs and make an outline or notes, if desired. However, they were told not to write any sentences or a detailed script for their conversation. As for individual rehearsals, participants were instructed to orally rehearse any aspect of conversation for at least two minutes. These aspects included: (1) greetings, making small talk, and closings (GSC); (2) expressing ideas or thoughts about the topic; (3) forming questions they might want to ask their partner about the topic; and (4) any formulaic words, phrases, or sentences used in communication strategies, such as fillers (e.g. ‘well. . .’, ‘what I mean is . . .’), listener expressions (e.g. ‘I see.’ ‘Sounds good.’), and negotiation phrases and expressions (e.g. ‘What did you say?’ ‘What do you mean?’). For example, students could repeatedly practice beginning and closing the conversation, only, or greetings and making questions. When rehearsing, the students were encouraged to imagine the situation and try to show their feelings using appropriate facial expressions and gestures too. An IC recorder was provided to all participants, and they were required to record every individual oral rehearsal.

Language Note Files (LNF) were also provided to all participants, and immediately after every interactive rehearsal and individual rehearsal, students were asked to write down what they noticed and any findings in their LNFs. Before performing subsequent rehearsals on the same topic, participants were allowed to look at their LNF notes from previous rehearsals.

Test Instruments

A face-to-face conversation test was prepared and used for both the pretest and postest. The students were randomly paired up for each test and asked to talk about a given topic in English for five minutes. The topic for all pairs in the pretest was ‘daily life’, while the topic for the postest was randomly chosen on the spot for each pair from seven topics covered in class. The pretest was held in the second lesson, and the postest was conducted during the 14th or 15th lesson of the course (Table 1). All pairs’ test performances were videotaped for analysis.

Analysis

Research Question 1

To generate data for answering the first research question, the following procedures were undertaken. First, all LNFs were collected and the students’ comments and notes, regarding any aspects of language or communication – written after interactive and individual rehearsals – were regarded as a ‘noticed problem’ (NP) and listed. Irrelevant comments, such as ‘I forgot to record the first rehearsal.’ were excluded. Next, an iterative qualitative approach was taken, and coding categories were established, by examining student comments and notes and finding common key words.

As a result, 16 categories were established (Appendix B). The number of comments students wrote down after each interactive rehearsal and individual rehearsal were counted as ‘noticed problems’ (NPs). Two researchers (R1 and R3) counted and agreed (87.3%) on the frequency of the NPs and their classification, and if disagreement arose, discussions were held which led to a mutual classification agreement.

Research Question 2

An assessment rubric (Appendix A) consisting of six categories and five scales was developed for this study based on the learning goals, content and focus of the speaking course to evaluate the participants’ performances in the pretest and postest. The three researchers of this study watched the recordings of all participants’ performances together, in the pretest and postest, and assessed them according to the rubric with a possible maximum score of 30. If there was more than a one-scale gap in any of the areas among the three raters, a discussion was held until an agreement was reached. Each student’s pretest and postest scores were calculated by obtaining the mean scores from the three assessors.

Results

Research Question 1: What do L2 learners notice through interactive rehearsals and individual rehearsals?

Students averaged about 6.0 interactive rehearsals during the course (Table 2), indicating approximately 1.2 rehearsals per conversation. More specifically, CR students rehearsed about 7.3 times in total and 1.46 times per conversation, while FR students rehearsed a total of approximately 4.8 times and .96 times per conversation.

Table 2.

Frequencies and Proportions of Interactive Rehearsals.

	All Participants (N = 60)				CR Group (n = 28)				FR Group (n = 32)
	n	%	M	SD	n	%	M	SD	n	%	M	SD
Conversation 1	102	28.6	1.7	0.5	49	24.0	1.8	0.5	53	34.6	1.6	0.5
Conversation 2	84	23.5	1.4	0.8	47	23.0	1.7	0.6	37	24.2	1.2	0.8
Conversation 3	75	21.0	1.3	0.8	45	22.0	1.6	0.7	30	19.6	0.9	0.8
Conversation 4	70	19.6	1.2	0.8	43	21.0	1.5	0.7	27	17.7	0.8	0.8
Conversation 5	26	7.3	0.4	0.7	20	10.0	0.7	0.9	6	3.9	0.2	0.5
Total	357	100.0	6.0	2.9	204	100.0	7.3	2.8	153	100.0	4.8	2.5

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

As Table 3 shows, students carried out about 14.7 individual rehearsals on average during the course, which represented approximately 2.94 rehearsals per conversation. More specifically, CR students rehearsed about 22.0 times in total and 4.4 times per conversation, and FR students rehearsed about 8.3 times in total and 1.66 times per conversation.

Table 3.

Frequencies and Proportions of Individual Rehearsals.

	All Participants (N = 60)				CR Group (n = 28)				FR Group (n = 32)
	n	%	M	SD	n	%	M	SD	n	%	M	SD
Conversation 1	235	26.6	3.9	1.8	144	23.3	5.1	1.5	91	34.3	2.8	1.3
Conversation 2	182	20.6	3.0	2.1	123	19.9	4.4	1.8	59	22.3	1.8	1.5
Conversation 3	171	19.4	2.9	2.2	121	19.6	4.3	1.8	50	18.9	1.6	1.5
Conversation 4	153	17.4	2.6	2.2	115	18.7	4.1	2.1	38	14.3	1.2	1.1
Conversation 5	141	16.0	2.4	2.3	114	18.5	4.1	2.1	27	10.2	0.8	1.1
Total	882	100.0	14.7	9.8	617	100.0	22.0	8.9	265	100.0	8.3	5.0

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

There were 865 NPs in total, written by students in their LNFs, for interactive rehearsals (Table 4), suggesting that while rehearsing in pairs for five conversations, on average, each student noticed about 14.4 problems. On the other hand, there were 919 NPs for individual rehearsals, which means that a student noticed an average of about 15.3 problems. Although the average frequencies of NPs through interactive rehearsals and individual rehearsals were similar, what students were likely to notice differed between the two types of rehearsals. It appeared that after interactive rehearsals, they noticed categories requiring a partner (e.g. GSC, pair content, asking questions, listener expressions, negotiation, non-verbal cues, AAA, and changing the topic), whereas, after individual rehearsals, students noticed categories that could be practiced effectively alone (e.g. individual content, English fillers, vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar, and fluency).

Table 4.

NPs in Interactive Rehearsals and Individual Rehearsals.

	Interactive Rehearsals												Individual Rehearsals
	All Participants (N=60)				CR groups (n=28)				FR group (n=32)				All Participants (N=60)				CR groups (n=28)				FR group (n=32)
	n	%	M	SD	n	%	M	SD	n	%	M	SD	n	%	M	SD	n	%	M	SD	n	%	M	SD
GSC*	116	13.4	3.80	1.59	75	13.9	2.68	1.73	41	12.5	1.28	1.10	77	8.4	2.53	2.21	51	8.0	1.82	2.93	26	9.1	0.81	1.07
Individual content	139	16.0	4.56	2.27	99	18.4	3.54	2.50	40	12.2	1.25	1.32	285	31.0	9.34	4.44	185	29.2	6.61	5.54	100	35.1	3.13	2.10
Pair content	133	15.4	4.36	1.98	78	14.5	2.79	1.70	55	16.8	1.72	1.99	43	4.7	1.41	0.80	20	3.2	0.71	0.84	23	8.0	0.72	0.76
Asking questions	117	13.5	3.84	1.70	68	12.6	2.43	1.80	49	15.0	1.53	1.37	63	6.9	2.07	2.03	43	6.8	1.54	2.73	20	7.0	0.63	0.89
Listener expressions	59	6.8	1.93	0.88	30	5.6	1.07	0.88	29	8.9	0.91	0.88	21	2.3	0.69	0.57	10	1.6	0.36	0.55	11	3.9	0.34	0.59
English fillers	16	1.8	0.52	0.70	11	2.0	0.39	0.94	5	1.5	0.16	0.36	34	3.7	1.11	0.80	22	3.5	0.79	0.98	12	4.2	0.38	0.55
Negotiation	27	3.1	0.89	0.64	17	3.2	0.61	0.72	10	3.1	0.31	0.53	10	1.1	0.33	0.45	6	1.0	0.21	0.56	4	1.4	0.13	0.33
Vocabulary	71	8.2	2.33	1.23	44	8.2	1.57	1.40	27	8.3	0.84	0.94	220	23.9	7.21	5.33	174	27.4	6.21	6.81	46	16.1	1.44	1.48
Pronunciation	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	25	2.7	0.82	1.51	22	3.5	0.79	2.13	3	1.0	0.09	0.29
Grammar	8	1.0	0.26	0.34	3	0.1	0.11	0.31	5	1.5	0.16	0.36	17	1.9	0.56	0.75	11	1.7	0.39	1.01	6	2.1	0.19	0.39
Fluency	23	2.7	0.75	0.61	13	2.4	0.46	0.68	10	3.1	0.31	0.53	68	7.4	2.23	2.05	53	8.4	1.89	2.58	15	5.3	0.47	1.06
Task completion	35	4.0	1.15	1.07	21	3.9	0.75	1.40	14	4.3	0.44	0.61	11	1.2	0.36	0.43	5	1.0	0.18	0.47	6	2.1	0.19	0.39
Non-verbal cues	61	7.1	2.00	1.48	38	7.1	1.36	1.87	23	7.0	0.72	0.91	28	3.0	0.92	1.15	20	3.2	0.71	1.56	8	2.8	0.25	0.50
Thoughts & feelings	31	3.6	1.02	0.92	23	4.3	0.82	1.14	8	2.4	0.25	0.56	17	1.8	0.28	0.87	12	1.9	0.43	1.18	5	1.8	0.16	0.44
AAA*	17	2.0	0.56	0.49	10	1.9	0.35	0.55	7	2.1	0.22	0.41	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Changing the topic	12	1.4	0.39	0.44	8	1.5	0.29	0.52	4	1.2	0.13	0.33	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Total	865	100			538	100			327	100			919	100			634	100			285	100

Note. NP=Noticed Problems, M = mean; SD = standard deviation. GSC = greetings, small talks, closings, AAA = asking questions, answering, adding information.

A medium correlation was found, in both types, between the frequency of pair rehearsals and the quantity of NPs during pair rehearsals (r=.581, p<.01.), as well as the frequency of individual rehearsals and the quantity of NPs during individual rehearsals (r=.655, p<.01.). These results indicate that both pair and individual rehearsals are likely to help learners notice their linguistic or communicative problems.

Research Question 2: Do interactive rehearsals and individual rehearsals improve learners’ L2 speaking ability?

Each student’s pretest and postest scores were calculated by obtaining the mean scores from three assessors (Table 5), and both groups showed a gain from the pretest to the postest (CR: 4.3 points, FR: 5.9).

Table 5.

Mean Scores of Conversation Tests.

	Pretest		postest
	M	SD	M	SD
All (N=60)	15.4	3.2	20.5	3.0
CR (n=28)	16.5	3.1	20.8	2.2
FR (n=32)	14.4	3.0	20.3	3.6

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

Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the influence of class type and the frequencies of interactive oral rehearsals, and individual oral rehearsals, on conversation test scores. The F-ratio of the final model was 9.62 (p < .01), which means the model was meaningful to analyse the variables in the data. The R² increment of the final model was .304, indicating the regression model explains almost 30% of the variance in the dependent variable. The analysis showed that class type (CR or FR) as well as the frequencies of both an interactive rehearsal and an individual rehearsal were found to be significant predictors of the students’ improvement in the conversation test (class type: β = −.69, p < .01, interactive rehearsal: β = .37, p < .05, individual rehearsal: β = .39, p < .05) (Table 6). Therefore, both types of rehearsals appeared to promote learners’ communication ability.

Table 6.

Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for Conversation Test Scores.

	Independent Variable	Unstandardized Coefficient B	SE	Standardized Coefficient β	t	Sig.
Test Score Changes	Class Type (CR or FR)	−4.54	0.99	−.69	−4.56	0.000**
	Frequency of Interactive Rehearsals	0.43	0.17	.37	2.49	0.0155*
	Frequency of Individual Rehearsals	0.13	0.06	.39	2.15	0.0356*

Note. B = regression coefficient; β = standardized partial regression coefficient; SE = standard error; Sig. = significance. *p<.05. **p<.01.

Furthermore, multiple regression analysis was used to examine the influence of the three independent variables, above, on the changes in the test scores regarding six areas. The F-ratios of the final models were as follows: (1) GSC: 5.59 (p < .01), (2) expressing ideas: 5.85 (p < .01), (3) making questions: 0.25 (not significant), (4) vocabulary: 4.65 (p < .01), (5) flow of conversation: 6.19 (p < .01), and (6) attitude: 8.40 (p < .01). Therefore, the F-ratios of the final models were all meaningful for further analysis, except in the area of, ‘making questions’.

As Table 7 shows, class type was a significant predictor of improvement for all areas (GSC: R² = .189, β = −.44, p < .01; expressing ideas: R² = .198, β = −.36, p < .05; vocabulary: R² = .156, β = −.53, p < .01; flow: R² = .208, β = −.67, p < .01; attitude: R² = .273, β = − .69, p < .01). Interactive rehearsal was a significant predictor of improvement for greetings, small talk, and closings (R² = .189, β = .50, p < .01) and attitude (R² = .273, β = .36, p < .05). Individual rehearsal was a significant predictor of improvement for expressing ideas (R² = .198, β = .39, p < .05), and vocabulary (R² = .156, β = .57, p < .01). They indicate that interactive rehearsals tend to prompt learners’ skills of GSC and attitude, while individual rehearsals appeared to enhance learners’ ability to express their ideas and develop their vocabulary.

Table 7.

Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for Conversation Test Scores in all Areas except Questions.

	Independent Variable	Unstandardized Coefficient B	SE	Standardized Coefficient β	t	Sig.
Greetings, Small Talk, & Closing	Class Type (CR or FR)	–0.72	0.27	–.44	–2.66	0.009**
Greetings, Small Talk, & Closing	Frequency of Interactive Rehearsals	0.14	0.04	.50	3.12	0.002**
	Frequency of Individual Rehearsals	–0.01	0.01	–.01	–0.33	0.739
Expressing ideas & thoughts	Class Type (CR or FR)	–0.62	0.28	–.36	–2.22	0.030*
Expressing ideas & thoughts	Frequency of Interactive Rehearsals	0.09	0.04	.31	1.94	0.056
	Frequency of Individual Rehearsals	0.03	0.01	.39	2.00	0.049*
Vocabulary	Class Type (CR or FR)	–0.73	0.23	–.53	–3.17	0.002**
	Frequency of Interactive Rehearsals	0.01	0.04	.20	0.32	0.750
	Frequency of Individual Rehearsals	0.04	0.01	.57	2.85	0.006**
Maintaing the flow of conversation	Class Type (CR or FR)	–1.23	0.29	–.67	–4.16	0.000**
Maintaing the flow of conversation	Frequency of Interactive Rehearsals	0.05	0.05	.17	1.11	0.269
	Frequency of Individual Rehearsals	0.03	0.01	.32	1.66	0.101
Attitude	Class Type (CR or FR)	1.25	0.28	–.69	–4.44	0.000**
	Frequency of Interactive Rehearsals	0.11	0.04	.36	2.38	0.020*
	Frequency of Individual Rehearsals	0.02	0.01	.21	1.15	0.252

Note. B = regression coefficient; β = standardized partial regression coefficient; SE = standard error; Sig. = significance. *p<.05. **p<.01.

Discussion

The results showed a clear difference between interactive rehearsals and individual rehearsals, regarding their effectiveness on L2 communication ability. The more students engage in interactive rehearsals, the more likely they are to improve their scores of greetings, small talk, and closings (GSC), as well as attitude, whereas the more they engage in individual rehearsals, the more likely they are to improve their scores in expressing ideas and vocabulary. Interestingly, the categories that students showed improvement in seemed to coincide with what they noticed through rehearsals. The analysis of the students’ LNFs (Table 4) revealed that interactive rehearsals seemed to draw learners’ attention to more communicative aspects involved between two speakers than individual rehearsals.

On the other hand, individual rehearsals appeared to draw the learners’ attention to aspects, such as the meaning of the message (e.g. individual content and vocabulary), accuracy (pronunciation and grammar), and fluency more than interactive rehearsals. Although students were not instructed to focus on any specific categories while writing down what they noticed after each rehearsal, what they wrote about the most in individual rehearsals was individual content (31.0 %) and vocabulary (23.9%), which were the same areas as the author’s previous studies (Nagasaki and Orimoto, 2016; Nagasaki, Orimoto, and Armitage, 2019). It can be assumed that interactive rehearsals and individual rehearsals facilitate learners’ noticing towards different areas of language and communication; thus, they promote the development of different aspects of L2 communication ability. Hence, engaging in both types of oral rehearsals is more crucial than doing one type to develop learners’ communicative ability.

The chief aim of the present study was to examine whether repetitive interaction promotes learners’ oral communication ability. Although the previous studies showed that interaction is effective to improve some specific grammatical forms or vocabulary (Keck et al. 2006; Mackey and Goo, 2007), or accuracy of learners’ utterances (Lynch and Maclean, 2000; Lynch and Maclean, 2001), this study was able to reveal that it contributes to developing overall communication ability (Table 6), especially learners’ skills of starting and ending conversation and their attitude toward communication (Table 7). The findings also indicate that L2 learners can benefit from each other to improve communication ability if they repeatedly engage in interaction.

Two factors might have contributed to these results. First, learner-learner interaction seems to reduce their anxiety toward L2 communication. In the students’ LNFs, many students pointed out interactive rehearsals helped them reduce anxiety and gain confidence in communicating with others. Second, it could be peer feedback that enables them to learn from each other. In fact, the students felt that interactive rehearsals gave them useful feedback and a chance to reflect on their language, similar to the findings of Storch (2002) and Adams (2007). For example, students wrote in their LNFs: ‘I could learn a lot from the way my partners talk and language they use,’ and ‘interactive rehearsals made me realize what aspects I need to work on, which I overlooked in individual oral rehearsals’ after interactive rehearsals. As Sato and Lyster (2007) previously indicated, the students in the present study probably felt comfortable asking questions or giving feedback to each other in learner-learner interactions, and it was a ‘safe’ place to experiment as Philp, Adams and Iwashita (2014) found. Moreover, students were willing to modify their utterances which was different from findings in other studies, where students worried that they had inadequate ability to provide feedback or that they would retain mistakes made by their partners (Barker, 2004; Hyland, 2004).

This type of collaborative work might lead to more L2 learning than individual work. As Figure 1 indicates, through individual rehearsals, L2 learners noticed some linguistic problems on their own. Subsequently, they might modify the problems by obtaining related input (e.g. a textbook or a dictionary) or using their current knowledge, some of which might eventually contribute to their L2 speaking development. On the other hand, as Figure 2 demonstrates, pair rehearsals make it possible for students to notice problems not only by themselves but also through feedback from their peers. In addition, the noticed problems may lead to some self-modification, some collaborative-modification (the students correct the problems, discussing and working together), and both of these contribute to improving students’ L2 speaking performance (Goh and Burns, 2012). Therefore, pair rehearsals offer more means and opportunities for learners to modify their utterances, helping each other build ‘bridges to proficiency’ (Ohta, 2001: 125).

Figure 1.

How individual rehearsals contribute to L2 speaking development.

Figure 2.

How interactive rehearsals contribute to L2 speaking development.

The present study also showed that when learners were not required, but encouraged to rehearse a conversation, they were more likely to improve their scores in all categories of the conversation test (Table 7). Despite their lower proficiency level at the beginning of the course, FR students could attain nearly the same level as CR students in the conversation postest at the end of the course. One explanation could be that there were many opportunities for students to interact with each other through a variety of pair or group communicative tasks and activities in the speaking lessons. Furthermore, the students got used to the type of conversation test used in the final test through the lessons, as it was a course goal. To summarize, opportunities of communicative interaction with other learners in class were abundant enough to boost their scores, despite the fact that the FR group’s rehearsal frequency was far less than the CR group.

Conclusion

This study found that both interactive rehearsals and individual rehearsals are effective for improving communication ability and different types of rehearsals develop different linguistic aspects, so both types of rehearsals could be beneficial exercises for EFL students. However, there are a number of limitations. An obvious limitation is the curriculum alignment, giving all students ample opportunity to practise in class. It could be these activities themselves and not the rehearsals that led to increased test scores. Also, there are some aspects of the test that need to be considered. The pretest was given in the second lesson of the class when most first-year students were not familiar with other members of the class and this could have had an adverse effect on conversation scores given the complexity of peer interactions, including social dynamics, individual differences, and proficiency (Philp et al., 2014). In addition, students became familiar with the test format by using the rubric in class. They understood what categories were on the assessment rubric and the type of utterances that would lead to a good score, so it is impossible to determine how much the improvement in scores is due to test familiarity.

In future studies a wider variety of oral communication tests should be used to examine how rehearsals affect communicative ability improvement and more qualitative methods, such as video-stimulated recall interviews, will be undertaken to examine participants’ thoughts while communicating with others.

As with many studies carried out in the classroom it is difficult to extrapolate the findings of any study to the real-world environment (Sato and McNamara, 2018), but this study has shown that providing learners with many opportunities to engage in communicative interaction in class and out of class, in the form of rehearsals, is an effective way to help learners develop their L2 communicative ability.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B.

Categories and Examples of Noticed Problems (NPs) in Rehearsals.

Categories	Examples of Noticed Problems (NPs)
GSC	・I practiced the sequence of ‘greetings, making small talk, and closings’ on my own. I want to practice them more to be able to use them naturally in a conversation. ・I think I can now close a conversation naturally. ・I will ask ‘Do you have any plans for GW holidays?’ to make small talk.
Individual content	・I want to give stronger reasons for why I like his movies.・What I want to talk about: (1) I like to play the horn, (2) When my parents bought it for me, (3) a good memory of playing the horn. ・To talk more about my hometown, I should research more about it and think about some related episodes.
Pair content	・We should’ve thought about an outline for our conversation before we practiced. ・The flow of our conversation: (1) the best place we have ever been to (2) the places we would like to visit in the future
Asking questions	・I want to ask my partner more questions to have a deeper conversation. ・What is the best place you’ve ever been to?
Listener expressions	・I use the same listener expressions. I should use more variety.・[Surprised] Oh really? [Happy] Great! Sounds good. [Understanding] I see. Right. [Agreement.] Me, too. I think so, too. [Sad] Too bad. ・I can’t immediately give appropriate listener expressions.
English fillers	・Instead of ‘Eeto (えーと)’ I want to use fillers such as ‘well. . .’ and ‘so. . .’ to fill some of the gaps. ・While I’m thinking about what to say next, I should use ‘well. . .’ or ‘let me see . . .’ to avoid silence.
Negotiation	・If I couldn’t understand what my partner said. . .’Could you speak more slowly?’ or ‘I’m sorry but what do you mean by ~?’・If I couldn’t understand what my partner said, I should ask him/her to repeat themselves.
Vocabulary	・My vocabulary is limited. ・’Saikin (最近)’–recently, lately, these days, newly. ・I want to use simple words, so that others understand me more clearly.
Pronunciation	・My pronunciation is not good. I especially should practice stress patterns. ・I will be more careful about intonation. ・’nutritional’ → nutrítional
Grammar	・I should be more aware of grammar. I need to review ‘Present Perfect.’ ・I made many grammar errors and worried about them too much while speaking.
Fluency	・It takes time to express what I want to say in English, so I want to improve fluency. ・I speak so slowly and often have long pauses while talking.
Task completion	・I’m worried if we can continue the conversation for five minutes. ・We could talk for five minutes.
Non-verbal cues	・Both of us should make more eye contact. ・I will practice speaking with a smile. ・I used gestures today and thought that it really helped us communicate more smoothly and understand each other better. ・I realized that the attitude to continue talking is important.
Thoughts & feelings	・It was the last rehearsal homework. I want to continue to rehearse. ・I feel happy that I could make some friends through pair rehearsals. ・Rehearsals made me feel more confident in speaking.
AAA*	・I should practice the AAA pattern more. ・We couldn’t use AAA well, so our conversation was awkward.
Changing the topic	・I don’t know how to start a conversation after small talk or how to change the topic. ・Speaking of A, By the way, Anyway

Note. Words translated from Japanese into English are italicized.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is part of a project supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18K00871.

ORCID iD

Mutsuko Nagasaki

Notes

References

Adams

(2007) Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In: Mackey

(ed.) Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29-51.

Baker

Cundick

Evans

Henrichsen

Dewey

(2012) The relationship between reported out-of-class English use and proficiency gains in English. Applied Language Learning 22: 21–47.

Barker

(2004) Encouraging students to take their language learning outside the classroom. JALT Hokkaido Journal: 879–86.

Garcia-Mayo

Pica

(2000) L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: are learning needs addressed? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 38: 35–58.

Goh

CCM

Burns

(2012) Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland

(2004) Learning autonomously: contextualizing out-of-class English language learning. Language Awareness 13(3): 180–202.

Keck

Iberri-Shea

Tracy-Venture

Wa-Mbaleka

(2006) Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: a quantitative meta-analysis. In: Norris

Ortega

(eds) Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 91–131.

Lynch

Maclean

(2000) Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research 4(3): 221–50.

Lynch

Maclean

(2001) A case of exercising: effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In: Bygate

Skehan

Swain

(eds) Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Pearson Education, 141–62.

10.

Mackey

Goo

(2007) Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: Mackey

(ed.) Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 407–52.

11.

Mackey

Oliver

Leeman

(2003) Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: an exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning 53: 35–66.

12.

Nagasaki

Orimoto

(2016) Effects of oral rehearsal on L2 speaking improvement. JACET Chugoku-Shikoku Chapter Bulletin 13: 53–70.

13.

Nagasaki

Orimoto

Armitage

(2019) The contribution of noticing and self-modification through repetitive oral output to second language learners’ monologic speaking performances. JACET Chugoku-Shikoku Chapter Bulletin 16: 103–120.

14.

Ohta

(2001) Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

15.

Philp

Adams

Iwashita

(2014) Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning. New York: Routledge.

16.

Pica

Lincoln-Porter

Paninos

Linnell

(1996) Language learners’ interaction: how does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly 30(1): 59–84.

17.

Sato

Lyster

(2007) Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In: Mackey

(ed.) Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,123–42.

18.

Sato

McNamara

(2018) What counts in second language oral communication ability? The perspective of linguistic laypersons. Applied Linguistics 1: 1–24.

19.

Storch

(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52: 119–58.

20.

Swain

Suzuki

(2008) Interaction, output and communicative language learning. In: Spolsky

Hult

(eds) The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 557–70.