The table above shows that most of the students agreed to consider that task difficulty, meaning focus, and time pressure were the factors of their disfluency in speaking. Planning, preparation, and task repetition aspects were not considered to be disfluency factors.
Based on the findings of the analysis on the fluency level and the disfluency factors, it shows that the students’ speaking fluency level is on level 3 which means “good” but it is also seen that they should have been better. The claim appears due to the fact that the course units they studied in the previous semesters had complied some of the fluency improvement methods proposed by Nation and Newton (2009.154-155). Those course units were Speaking 1, Speaking 2, Public Speaking, and Spoken English Activity (SEA). The materials in the Speaking 1 syllabus are considerably easy, contextual-based or meaning focused, and the students are given preparation and planning time which suit Nation and Newton’s proposal. Some topics are about starting and ending conversation, asking and offering help, accepting and refusing, situation-based dialogues, like and dislike, seeking clarification, agreeing and disagreeing, and many other topics alike. In the Speaking 2 syllabus it is also seen that the topics are about symphaty, encouragement, suggestion, criticism, …show more content…
Those aspects to be noticed are the mean length of runs, the pause rate, and the speech rate. It is understood that they did not achieve a good fluency ability defined by Lenon in Cucchiarini, Strik, and Boves (2002:2) who says that fluency is the speaker’s ability to produce speech at the same tempo with the native speakers without the problems of silent pauses, hesitations, filled pauses, self-corrections, repetitions, and false
Based on the findings of the analysis on the fluency level and the disfluency factors, it shows that the students’ speaking fluency level is on level 3 which means “good” but it is also seen that they should have been better. The claim appears due to the fact that the course units they studied in the previous semesters had complied some of the fluency improvement methods proposed by Nation and Newton (2009.154-155). Those course units were Speaking 1, Speaking 2, Public Speaking, and Spoken English Activity (SEA). The materials in the Speaking 1 syllabus are considerably easy, contextual-based or meaning focused, and the students are given preparation and planning time which suit Nation and Newton’s proposal. Some topics are about starting and ending conversation, asking and offering help, accepting and refusing, situation-based dialogues, like and dislike, seeking clarification, agreeing and disagreeing, and many other topics alike. In the Speaking 2 syllabus it is also seen that the topics are about symphaty, encouragement, suggestion, criticism, …show more content…
Those aspects to be noticed are the mean length of runs, the pause rate, and the speech rate. It is understood that they did not achieve a good fluency ability defined by Lenon in Cucchiarini, Strik, and Boves (2002:2) who says that fluency is the speaker’s ability to produce speech at the same tempo with the native speakers without the problems of silent pauses, hesitations, filled pauses, self-corrections, repetitions, and false