Fluency is a complex concept encompassing various aspects related to both understanding and producing language. This study focuses on speaking fluency in an L2 context. Defining “speaking fluently,” however, has been a longstanding issue in the SLA field, with numerous definitions emphasising different aspects.

A key distinction in defining oral fluency is Lennon’s broad and narrow senses (Koponen & Riggenbach, 2000; Lennon, 1990). In its broadest sense, fluency, or higher-order fluency, encompasses L2 overall proficiency (Lennon, 1990) or language mastery, a definition familiar to all L2 learners (Freed, 2000). Oral fluency in a narrower sense, or lower-order fluency, refers to a single component of oral proficiency (Lennon, 1990) which, integrated with complexity and accuracy, indicates successful L2 acquisition (Towell, 2012). This narrow concept of oral fluency is defined as the “rapid, smooth, accurate, lucid, and efficient translation of thought or communicative intention into language, under the temporal constraints of online processing” (Lennon, 2000, p. 26). In other words, speaking fluently commonly refers to control over L2 linguistic knowledge regarding temporal and acoustic features such as speed rate, pausing, and repair features (Housen & Kuiken, 2009).

Within such a narrow definition of oral fluency, Segalowitz (2010) offers a holistic perspective, viewing fluency as a multicomponent construct that encompasses cognitive, utterance, and perceived fluency. Cognitive fluency relates to speech production mechanics, involving conceptualising speech content, activating working memory, and transforming the mental lexicon into phonemes (Segalowitz, 2012). This cognitive processing is crucial since “the more rapidly language users can access and produce the words they want to use, the more fluent their speaking” (Lintunen et al., 2020, p. 4).

Utterance fluency, the oral manifestation of cognitive fluency, represents measurable speech aspects. Skehan (2003) and Tavakoli and Skehan (2005) propose a three-dimensional framework: speed of delivery, breakdown in speech, and repair measures. Speed of delivery includes speech rate, articulation rate, amount of speech, time ratio, and mean length of run. Breakdown in speech refers to interruptions (e.g., pausing), while repair measures include strategies such as reformulation, replacement, false starts, and repetition. Although pausing and repairs are generally markers of disfluent speech, recent studies suggest they may maintain fluency from a problem-solving perspective (Peltonen, 2020). This framework has proven very influential for researchers approaching fluency in its narrow sense (Lintunen et al., 2020).

Lastly, perceived fluency concerns “the inferences listeners make about a speaker’s cognitive fluency based on their perception of utterance fluency” (Segalowitz, 2010, p. 48). Teachers or assessment practitioners contrast this type of fluency with objective fluency measures from learners’ performance and ratings (Lintunen et al., 2020). This fluency type often relates to intelligibility and pleasantness of utterances, emphasising engagement (Freed, 2000; Lennon, 2000).

While Segalowitz’s framework provides a comprehensive view of oral fluency and systematicity in its observation and measurement, other social, attitudinal, and motivational factors may also play a role in understanding oral fluency (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2009).

L2 fluency research has mainly focused on identifying reliable measures to characterise fluent speech—primarily on utterance fluency—and its relationship with perceived fluency (Kormos & Dénes, 2004), cognitive fluency (De Jong et al., 2013), general L2 speaking proficiency (Kahng, 2014), and L1 fluency (Derwing et al., 2009). However, studies on L2 fluency pedagogy are less diverse, mainly addressing task design, implementation, and complexity (Tavakoli & Wright, 2020).

Research on task design consistently reports six techniques or tasks that benefit L2 oral fluency development: formulaic sequences, task repetition, planning time, the 4/3/2 technique, fluency strategy training, and awareness-raising tasks. Teaching formulaic sequences (e.g., collocations, phrasal verbs, lexical bundles) reduces working memory load, facilitating easier processing (McGuire & Larson-Hall, 2017). Task repetition improves speech speed, articulation, and automaticity (Tavakoli et al., 2016) while also allowing learners to familiarise themselves with task content, refine language use, and compensate for disfluencies (Gashan & Almohaisen, 2014). Planning time before a task enhances oral output and fluency (Bui & Huang, 2018). The 4/3/2 technique—task repetition under decreasing time limits (4, 3, and 2 minutes)—boosts fluency (Thai & Boers, 2016). Fluency strategy training and awareness-raising tasks help learners address dysfluency. Strategies include reducing unnecessary repetitions, paraphrasing, and using fillers (e.g., “er,” “hum”), alongside activities such as listening, analysing, and reenacting fluent and dysfluent speech (Tavakoli et al., 2016).

Building on this previous research and a summary by Rossiter et al. (2010), Tavakoli and Hunter (2018) proposed a framework for analysing pedagogical activities that foster oral fluency. The framework includes (a) consciousness-raising activities; (b) planning, rehearsal, and repetition; (c) use of formulaic sequences, discourse markers, and lexical fillers; (d) fluency strategy training; (e) communicative free-production tasks, which focus on meaning and encourage free L2 communication (e.g., role-plays, debates, group work); and (f) general L2 proficiency tasks, a broader category covering activities aimed at developing pronunciation, vocabulary, or other linguistic skills such as listening or reading. These tasks distinguish general speaking activities from those specifically designed to target fluency.

Regarding task complexity (i.e., cognitive demands of a task), studies have revealed that increasing cognitive-task demands results in positive effects for accuracy often at the expense of oral fluency development (Gilabert et al., 2011; Michel, 2011; Nayoung, 2020), unless L2 speakers have more resources available for task performance, such as more planning time or guided attention towards mode, language form, and fluency resources (Ellis, 2017).

Despite advancements in understanding oral fluency and its application in L2 classrooms through specific tasks and techniques, research on teachers’ fluency practices remains scarce. Few studies have examined how L2 teachers define and promote oral fluency, despite their critical role in fostering fluency, especially when the L2 cannot be practised outside the classroom.

Previous studies have shown varying definitions and classroom practices regarding oral fluency. Dore (2015) investigated the intuitive notions of oral fluency among Italy- and UK-based English teachers, finding no consensus among the participants. Italian teachers defined oral fluency as general spoken command, while UK teachers emphasised cognitive and utterance fluency, likely due to their greater training and qualifications. Tavakoli and Hunter (2018) surveyed 84 English as a second language, EFL, or modern foreign languages (e.g., Spanish, German) teachers, discovering that they fell between broad and narrow definitions of oral fluency, often overlooking ease and automaticity in speech. Furthermore, reported activities tended to focus on general speaking skills rather than fluency-specific techniques. According to Burns (2017), these general skills involve pronunciation, performing speech acts, interaction management, and discourse organisation.

Similar to the previous two studies, Morrison (2018) investigated the understanding, confidence, and practices of Chilean high school EFL teachers related to oral fluency, using a Spanish-adapted version of Tavakoli and Hunter’s (2018) questionnaire. The findings revealed misconceptions about oral fluency, with 56% of teachers associating it with general speaking ability and L2 proficiency, while only 14% referred to maintaining natural speech flow, which aligns with a narrow view of oral fluency. The remaining 30% provided unrelated definitions. Despite reporting confidence in developing oral fluency, their classroom practices lacked fluency-enhancing activities supported by research.

Lastly, Tavakoli (2023) examined the effects of a one-day professional training workshop on the oral fluency, understanding, and practices of 106 L2 teachers. Using the Tavakoli and Hunter (2018) questionnaire pre- and post-training, the study found that the intervention helped teachers adopt a narrower, research-aligned perspective on defining and promoting oral fluency. These findings align with Dore’s (2015) hypothesis that professional development improves oral fluency, understanding, and classroom practices.

Overall, the findings of these previous studies call for more fluency-focused classroom practice and familiarising teachers with adequate activities to promote oral fluency.

The participants were Colombian (three women, six men) and Spanish speakers. Their age range was: 5 = 25-34, 3 = 35-44, and 1 = 55+. Table 1 shows further details on the participants.

Table 1

Teacher	Gender	Last academic level	CEFR English level	Years teaching at the University
T1	Male	MA	C1	9-10
T2	Female	BA	C1	3-4
T3	Male	BA	C2	5-6
T4	Male	MA	C2	7-8
T5	Female	MA	C1	9-10
T6	Male	BA	C1	3-4
T7	Male	MA	C2	9-10
T8	Female	BA	C1	>10
T9	Male	MA	C1	3-4

A questionnaire, designed and distributed through Qualtrics, and a semi-structured interview were used for data collection. Additionally, a content analysis of the English File student textbook, third edition (the primary instructional material used by the participants), was conducted.

The questionnaire gathered participants’ profiles and background, while the interview addressed the research objectives. The semi-structured interview was chosen to draw richer data from the participants’ experiences (Galletta, 2013) and “raise extra-unplanned questions to explore and clarify [the participants’] responses” (Elliot et al., 2016, par. 1). The interview had two sections, aligned with the research questions: (a) a section for participants to define oral fluency, describe fluent EFL speakers, assess their confidence in promoting oral fluency, and discuss their familiarity with oral fluency research; (b) open-ended questions about classroom activities that promote oral fluency and how the textbook supported it, if applicable.

The interview was piloted with two non-native EFL teachers from the participants’ university, which led to the addition of a third section that presented three sample textbook activities identified as fluency-based in prior content analysis, enriching the participants’ descriptions and rationale for using such activities. The content analysis investigated the extent to which fluency-oriented speaking activities were present in the textbooks employed by the participants, specifically the Elementary, Pre-Intermediate, Intermediate, and Upper-Intermediate levels of the English File series.

The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the researcher. The data from each section were then analysed as follows:

Section I: Teachers’ oral fluency definition, confidence, and research familiarity. Thematic coding was applied (descriptive, analytic, and axial), segmenting the qualitative data into initial codes, grouping them into categories, and connecting them to main themes (Cohen et al., 2007). For example, the statement “an L2 fluent speaker should be able to transfer the information or speak with another person in an effective manner” (T2) was coded as: fluent-speaker features (descriptive), ability to convey meaning effectively (analytic), and fluency as effective communication (axial). A frequency analysis was then conducted to determine the most frequent codes or categories.

Section II: Promotion of oral fluency in the classroom. Tavakoli and Hunter’s (2018) framework on fluency-focused activities was used to code the activities described by participants.

Section III: Perception of the English File student textbook. Same process as in Section I. Emergent codes were recorded and refined through the researcher’s iterative reading and re-examination.

The content analysis of each textbook was carried out in three phases. In the first phase, all activities aimed at developing the speaking skill were identified and classified into tasks that focused on accuracy and tasks that focused on oral fluency. In the second phase, accuracy-based activities were discarded, and fluency-based activities were coded using Tavakoli and Hunter’s (2018) framework, and those codes were logged. The results of both phases were recorded on different spreadsheets. To ensure an accurate and objective coding through content analysis, another researcher conducted the same second-phase analysis, confirming the results. In the third phase, IBM SPSS Statistics software was employed to calculate the number of entries and the frequency of each type of activity across the four textbooks.

Participants received information sheets and online consent forms. After five weeks of data collection, participants were anonymised with codes, ensuring confidentiality and restricted data use for academic purposes.

According to the participants, oral fluency is an ability that involves a wide range of speaking features. Interestingly, most of these features reside in both the broad and narrow senses of the term formulated by theory. Although the teachers mentioned the features shown in Table 2, they do not distinguish categorically between the broad and narrow definitions, highlighting a discrepancy between the scholarly definition of the concept and the teachers’ understanding of it. This is consistent with Dore’s (2015) and Tavakoli and Hunter’s (2018) findings regarding the definitions of oral fluency as encompassing a wide variety of characteristics and a mixed conceptualisation.

Table 2

Type of definition	Feature	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	T6	T7	T8	T9	Frequency
Broad	Efficiently transmitting a communicative message	*	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	8
	Using comprehensive vocabulary	*				*	*	*			4
	Native-like pronunciation					*			*		2
	Organising discourse appropriately	*							*		2
	Regulating speech interaction	*									1
Narrow	Automaticity in cognitive processes	*	*	*	*		*	*			6
	Speaking at a regular pace	*		*			*	*			4
	Speaking with a few pauses		*				*	*	*		4
	Pleasing the listeners				*		*				2
	Absence of filler words		*								1
Other	Showing self-confidence		*	*				*			3

“Efficiently transmitting a communicative intention or message” was the most reported feature (8 out of 9), suggesting a broad notion of oral fluency akin to communicative competence or L2 overall proficiency (Lennon, 1990). Example statements from teachers include:

In second place, six participants reported that “exhibiting control over cognitive processes,” such as lexical retrieval and message codification, is of vital importance to be fluent in an L2. These teachers noted, for example, that fluency involves “express[ing] ideas without having to look for words or structures” (T1), “using [rules] unconsciously” (T3), or avoiding “translating in [one’s] head” (T6). In other words, they suggested oral fluency relates to automaticity in uttering the desired message (i.e., cognitive fluency; Segalowitz, 2010).

Additionally, some participants suggested that “speaking at a regular pace” (4) and “with few pauses” (4) are other essential features when defining fluent speech. For instance, T7 described fluency as “the ability to communicate…maintaining a similar pace without many breaks…and to continuously provide a message in a clear way.” This view was echoed by T8: “A fluent speaker would be someone who expresses without pauses, hesitation…being coherent,” and T3: “Conveys a message smoothly without major issues and having constant speed in their speech.” These two aspects—natural pace and lack of pauses—coincide with aspects such as speed and breakdowns within the utterance fluency type introduced by Segalowitz (2010).

Further analysis revealed that “using comprehensive vocabulary” (4) is the fourth most relevant aspect in the oral fluency definition. This feature, as suggested by Burns (2017), reflects a general L2 speaking ability that allows the full command of the language (oral fluency, broad definition). T5 emphasised: “You have to have a really good knowledge of vocabulary…to express your ideas,” while T6 indicated that “fluency will be deeply related to vocabulary. As long as you feel you have enough lexicon to speak, you’re not gonna stop too much. You’re gonna be able to continue the conversation.”

Additional features to define oral fluency included “organising discourse appropriately,” having “native-like pronunciation,” and “pleasing the listeners (f = 2 each). The following excerpts exemplify these features:

These comments suggest, on the one hand, that these teachers may favour native-speakerism in their oral fluency-related teaching practices, and on the other, that evaluating the quality of fluent speech may not depend solely on the actual speech performance of L2 speakers, but also on the interlocutor’s role in the communicative act.

Thus, while “organizing discourse appropriately” and having a “native-like pronunciation” reflect a broad conceptualization of oral fluency, alluding to two additional general L2 speaking abilities, “pleasing the listeners” refers to perceived fluency from Segalowitz’s (2010) three-type fluency framework, which defines oral fluency as a single component of oral proficiency.

Other less emphasised features to define oral fluency and characterise L2 fluent speakers, but important for a couple of teachers, were having strategies to “regulate speech interaction” and the “absence of filler words.”

T2, in turn, insisted that when L2 speakers show a lack of filler words, they are more fluent. As she put it, “the absence of those filler words is a mark of actual fluency.”

In addition to the previous features associated with either the broad and narrow definition of oral fluency, the results of this study also supported Ushioda and Dörnyei’s (2009) view that fluency may be related to attitudinal factors, since three teachers mentioned that “showing self-confidence” is also a fluency marker. This may be a call to study how other social factors can be considered in defining oral fluency.

Overall, these results suggest that most participants understand oral fluency as a blend of elements from different conceptualisations, referring mainly to the command of an L2 (Lennon, 1990) and features which portray oral fluency as a single descriptor of L2 speaking consistent with Segalowitz’s (2010) framework.

The interview results showed that four participants felt confident and knowledgeable about promoting oral fluency in the EFL classroom, while another four felt barely confident. Only T1, a very experienced teacher, considered himself very confident.

The self-reported confident teachers attributed their confidence to their knowledge of various learning strategies and their creativity in designing tasks. For instance, T5 firmly believed that “it’s very important that, if you wanna help students develop fluency, you…give them a lot of strategies and tools.” T8 also highlighted activities like “work[ing] with linking [words]…reading out loud [and] making graphic links on the text for rhythm” as essential strategies.

Those less confident in promoting oral fluency had different reasons for this to be the case. T2, for example, noted she had limited experience teaching advanced courses, implying that oral fluency should be taught only at higher levels: “I cannot say that I have enough experience on that…since I’ve [been teaching in] the very first endeavours, like from [levels] 1 to 4. I focus on the basic primary structures and helping [students] be understood.”

Similarly, T6 rarely focused on fluency in class preparation due to a lack of confidence. He expressed that he has not “realised…if [he] say[s], for example, ‘today I’m gonna plan a class which is gonna be mainly focused on promoting fluency,’ and I really know what to do…I’M NOT SURE!”

Unlike these participants, T1 felt certain about various language aspects and activities that EFL learners should be directed to when developing oral fluency:

Further analysis revealed that most participants (8) were not acquainted with up-to-date oral fluency research. They admitted being “not very familiar” (T1), “not having read much” on the topic (T4), or lacking training, specifically about fluency (T5 & T8). Despite this, all teachers agreed that being informed by research is essential to improve their teaching practices.

T3 was the only teacher who had read research papers and received formal training on promoting oral fluency. He emphasised the importance of combining language learning experiences, teaching practice, and formal training to acquire effective techniques for stimulating oral fluency:

Although eight teachers perceived themselves as not very knowledgeable about oral fluency research and theoretical foundations, three agreed with T3’s statement, as illustrated in this excerpt:

This finding supports Lightbown’s (2017) view that language teachers draw knowledge from multiple sources, including personal experiences, early teaching experiences, and research on L2 learning and teaching. Lightbown argues that research helps teachers feel more confident in their pedagogical choices when they are reinforced by evidence, or it prompts teachers to try new methods. Thus, the teachers’ limited confidence in promoting oral fluency may relate to their lack of familiarity with fluency research.

The participants described 46 activities they considered promoted oral fluency. These activities were coded using Tavakoli and Hunter’s (2018) framework, and the results are summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1

As can be seen from Figure 1, 27 (58.7%) out of the 46 activities described by the teachers are, in fact, activities proven beneficial by research for L2 oral fluency development. This result is counterintuitive, given the teachers’ reported unfamiliarity with oral fluency research and lack of confidence in promoting oral fluency.

Within these fluency-oriented activities, “planning, rehearsal, and repetition” was the most reported (70.4%). Most examples within this category involved shadowing activities, that is, activities that consisted of having learners listen to and repeat as closely as possible what they hear from an audio material produced in the L2, particularly extracts from TV series or films. For instance, T6 explained:

Another representative activity within this category was having students speak under time constraints and repeat the exercise to produce and correct as much language as possible. According to T4, he tells students: “Take your phone, hit the record button, and then, just give yourself a topic…transportation in my city! and just speak for two minutes.” On another possible variation, EFL students can take some time to prepare and then practise and practise to “provide that information in…one minute, or one minute and thirty seconds.”

Additional activities mentioned included classroom surveys, such as “speed dating” (T6) or “find someone who” (T9), which require constant language repetition, allowing teachers to give learners time to plan their questions. T7 noted these activities seem to be beneficial for oral fluency since the “learners start worrying less about the form of the language [or] technical aspects of grammar, and they worry more about getting the message across.”

The second type of fluency-oriented activity with some presence was “consciousness-raising activities” (18.5%). From the five activities described, four involved the explicit analysis of some relevant elements of the speaking skill (e.g., speed, pronunciation, intonation) from the EFL students’ self-recorded audios. T4 described:

Apart from those elements, T8 emphasised the value of analysing connected speech to enhance oral fluency:

Although reported to a much lesser extent, “fluency strategy training activities” (7.4%) and the use of “formulaic sequences, discourse markers, and lexical fillers” (3.7%) were also mentioned as activities believed helpful for oral fluency development. Regarding the former, T4 and T8 said having taught rhythmic patterns and word stress to later give EFL learners opportunities to have controlled practice:

Concerning formulaic sequences, T3 explained the importance of teaching fixed chunks of words: “If [they] memorise or [get] familiar with groups of words, especially those that aren’t closer to [them], [they] will be able to speak easi[ly].” This idea aligns with the theory that automaticity leads to faster and smoother L2 speech.

Another significant finding was the constant reference to “free production” (11) and “general L2 proficiency activities” (8), with a total of 19 (41.3%) out of 46 activities. Although the SLA literature does not consider these two types of activities as proper fluency-oriented activities (Burns, 2017), the study participants believed they contributed to the development of oral fluency.

Debates (4) were the most frequent free-production activity. T2, for instance, narrated how he involves EFL students in debates: “Basically, I just pick any topic that is in vogue. [I] just divide the classroom and have one group talk about the possible pros and the other one [about] possible cons.” Likewise, T5 said: “Students need to read about a controversial topic, and they need to summarise ideas, and decide if they agree or disagree.” Additional samples of free-production activities were free conversations (3), role-plays (2), interviews (1), and contests (1).

General L2 proficiency activities included information gap activities where students interact and exchange information with their classmates (e.g., “students are supposed to solve a murder case like Sherlock Holmes” [T1]); the presentation of written compositions like “propaganda about products…which they must present in front of everybody” (T5); and oral presentations stemming from additional activities like “reading a book [and] writing a summary” (T5). These activities appeared to focus on supporting other language skills beyond speaking.

Overall, these results suggest a correlation between the EFL teachers’ understanding of oral fluency and the types of activities they believe encourage its development. As discussed above, oral fluency was seen as both equated to L2 proficiency and as a single component of the speaking skill, partly explaining why some activities encouraged general speaking.

The participants had mixed views on the support the English File textbook series provides for oral fluency. Four teachers found it minimally helpful, while the remaining five considered it a valuable resource for developing oral fluency. Positive aspects included guidance on pronunciation and ample opportunities for speaking. T3 and T4 highlighted these features:

Critiques included a lack of “conversation models [and] conversation strategies . . . students don’t have any way of knowing how to organise these conversations” (T5). Moreover, T2 noted that some speaking activities “are rigid, limiting the ability of the student to speak freely or deviate a little bit from the topic.” T9 believed, however, that EFL teachers “can adapt most of [the activities, and that it is their] responsibility [to create] real situations” to promote oral fluency.

The content analysis revealed that while the four selected textbooks included a considerable number of fluency-enhancing activities (see Table 3), their repertoire of fluency-focused activities was limited (see Table 4). It also showed that these textbooks predominantly relied on free-production activities, with minimal inclusion of explicit fluency-focused activities.

Table 3

Textbook	Frequency
Elementary	37
Pre-Intermediate	64
Intermediate	77
Upper-Intermediate	85
Total	263

Table 4

Type of activity	Frequency (%)
Consciousness-raising	0
Planning, rehearsal, repetition	37 (14%)
Formulaic sequences, discourse markers, and lexical fillers	6 (2.3%)
Fluency strategy training	1 (0.4%)
Free production	219 (83.3%)
Total	263

These findings suggest that the textbooks prioritise general speaking production activities over targeted oral fluency practice. Furthermore, the heavy reliance on free-production activities (83.3%) and the scarcity of fluency-related aspects, such as formulaic language, fluency strategy training, or planning and repetition activities (16.7%), may explain teachers’ disagreement on the usefulness of the textbooks for promoting oral fluency. According to Rossiter et al. (2010) and Tavakoli and Hunter (2018), there is insufficient empirical research supporting the effectiveness of free-production activities in developing L2 oral fluency. Future studies might, therefore, focus on how free-production activities are manipulated in class to determine whether they have a positive impact on oral fluency development.