Improving efl vietnamese learners’ speaking ability through the 4 / 3 / 2 technique

T. T. N. Yen / Improving EFL Vietnamese learners’ speaking ability through the 4/3/2 technique 
 70 
IMPROVING EFL VIETNAMESE LEARNERS’ SPEAKING ABILITY 
THROUGH THE 4/3/2 TECHNIQUE 
Tran Thi Ngoc Yen 
Vinh University 
Received on 25/4/2019, accepted for publication on 14/6/2019 
Abstract: Previous studies have showed the effects of different methods used in 
teaching the speaking skill in language classrooms in Vietnam. Yet not many 
language practitioners have focused on activities and techniques to improve EFL 
learners’ speaking fluency. This study looks at the use of the 4/3/2 technique in 
speaking classes. Data were collected through an experiment among first year 
English majors who were following the usual English program at a university. It was 
found that the treatment group outperformed the control group in terms of speaking 
fluency and accuracy. The study highlighted the benefits of the 4/3/2 technique and 
suggested that fluency and accuracy in language performance do not have to be in a 
trade-off relationship. 
1. Introduction 
Fluency in English is a prerequisite for success and advancement in many fields 
of employment in today’s world. This was probably the reason for the shift from 
traditional language teaching approaches to communicative language teaching, which 
sets language fluency development as one of the main teaching goals. While traditional 
methods focus on accuracy only, the communicative language teaching approach brings 
fluency-oriented activities into its curriculum. This inclusion of the second aspect of 
language performance has been believed to bring about learners’ development of both 
grammar competence and communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Brown, 
2007; Hedge, 2000). This movement has led to several changes in English language 
classrooms in Vietnam. However, many English language teachers have not yet been 
aware of the importance of fluency development in language learning. 
Language practitioners around the world have been looking for methods to help 
their learners improve language fluency. Among those we can find repeated reading 
(Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2008), speed reading (Tran & Nation, 2014), and extensive reading 
(Nunan, 1991) for reading fluency development; headlines activities, say it activities, 
Messenger, Marketplace (Nation, 1989), and the 4/3/2 technique (Maurice, 1987) for 
speaking fluency development. This paper looks at the effects of the 4/3/2 technique on 
EFL learners’ speaking ability development and aimed to confirm the hypothesis that 
speaking fluency is a trainable aspect. An experiment was carried out among 83 EFL 
university students and the participants’ speaking fluency was measured using a pre-test 
and post-test. 
Email: yenttn@vinhuni.edu.vn 
Vinh University Journal of Science, Vol. 48, No. 2B (2019), pp. 70-79 
 71 
2. Literature review 
2.1. The speaking skill and speaking fluency 
Scholars have attempted to discuss the speaking skill for decades. Some linguists 
see speaking as an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, 
receiving and processing information (Burn and Joyce, 1997). They assert that what and 
how people speak depend on the context in which the communication occurs, including 
the participants themselves, their collective experience, the physical environment, and 
the purposes for speaking. Similarly, Nunan (2003, p. 48) defines speaking as “a 
productive aural/oral skill” which “consists of producing systematic verbal utterances to 
convey meaning”. The ability to speak is considered to involve not only the knowledge of 
language features, but also the ability to process information and language “on the spot” 
(Harmer, 2001), and therefore success in spoken production depends on rapid mental and 
social processing skills. Harmer (2001: 269) listed the four necessary elements for 
spoken production: 1) connected speech characterized by assimilation, elision, linking, 
and contractions; 2) expressive devices such as changing the pitch and stress of 
sentences, varying volume and speed of a speech, showing emotions and attitudes; 
3) lexis and grammar, which are important in spontaneous speech to show surprise, 
approval or disagreement; 4) negotiation language which is used for clarification or 
reformulation of statements. Since speaking involves interaction with other speakers and 
listeners, a good speaker needs to understand how to take turns and how others feel about 
the topic under consideration. They also should be able to respond immediately. 
Past research has also emphasized the importance of speaking. Knight (1992), for 
example, believes that speaking skills are the most essential part of an EFL course. Along 
similar lines, Derakhshan, Tahery and Mirarab (2015) noted that there has been a broad 
demand for good speaking skills as the globalization of English rises. They maintain that 
speaking skills are the fundamental component of successful communication and thus 
should receive special attention from EFL teachers. Language practitioners, therefore, 
should find appropriate methods for developing their learners’ speaking ability. 
Some linguists define fluency in second and foreign language studies as “the 
ability to speak or write a particular foreign language easily and accurately” (Pearsall, 
1998, p. 707) or “making the most effective use of what skills are already known” 
(Nation, 1997, p. 30) or “the ability to keep going when speaking spontaneously” 
(Harmer, 2001). Other scientists claim that this term has two rather different meanings in 
English language teaching, one involving competence in the learner and the other 
involving natural language use and a pattern of language interaction as close as possible 
to native speakers’ use in normal life (Hedge, 1993). 
2.2. Accuracy, fluency and complexity 
According to many language practitioners and researchers, L2/FL performance 
and competence are complex terms as they contain various components. The majority of 
past research has relied on three factors to describe and assess L2/FL performance and 
competence: fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Skehan, 
1998). Since the 1990s, these three variables have come into focus in L2/FL learning 
T. T. N. Yen / Improving EFL Vietnamese learners’ speaking ability through the 4/3/2 technique 
 72 
research. It is believed that fluency, accuracy, and complexity can be used as both 
performance descriptors and proficiency indicators. Fluency refers to using the 
language with native-like rapidity, accuracy refers to being error-free, complexity refers 
to the ability to handle a wide range of structures and vocabulary. 
Accuracy has been distinguished from fluency since the 1980s when 
researchers were trying to depict and measure second language oral skills. Previous 
research has distinguished fluency-oriented activities and accuracy-oriented activities in 
a language program. Fluency activities help to improve spontaneous oral linguistic 
production while accuracy focuses on the accurate production of language structures 
(Brumfit, 1984). Complexity, the third component of the triad, came into focus in the 
1990s after Skehan (1998) for the first time added it to his L2 model. In the L2/FL 
acquisition literature, complexity relates itself to language tasks and language 
production. 
Prior studies investigating the effect of external factors on the learner’s 
accuracy, fluency, and complexity in language performance have proposed methods to 
assess the three components and explanations of how these three dimensions 
develop. In L1 learning, Wigglesworth (1997) confirmed that planning time provides 
greater advantages for high proficiency learners to make complex and fluent language 
production but the results were not unambiguous enough to decide whether accuracy 
was also developed. Conversely, Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) reported that in their 
research on the effect of collaborative writing on fluency, accuracy and complexity of 
the second language learner, accuracy was positively affected but fluency and 
complexity were not. In L2/FL learning, the majority of developmental measures of 
complexity, accuracy and fluency have been used to explore the effects of a treatment 
or an external factor on oral and written language production. For example, Yuan and 
Ellis (2003), and Mehnert (1998) examined how planning time helps learners to write 
better and assessed the learner’s writing in three dimensions: fluency (syllables per 
minute (spm)), accuracy and complexity. The results showed planning time resulted 
in greater fluency, accuracy, and complexity. However, other authors, such as Ellis 
(1987) and Crookes (1989), argued that planning time affects the learner’s language 
production in terms of complexity but did not significantly influence it in terms of 
accuracy. Recently Ahmadian and Tavakoli (2011) indicated that their findings showed 
careful planning time positively influenced complexity and accuracy but resulted in 
dysfluency. 
2.3. The 4/3/2 technique 
The 4/3/2 technique was first introduced by Maurice (1983) and later used by 
various language practitioners in their teaching such as Nation (1989), Arevart and 
Nation (1991), Yang (2014) and Movahed and Karkia (2014). This technique involves 
learners’ preparing for a topic and then talking about it for four minutes to a partner, and 
then three minutes to a new partner and finally two minutes to the third partner. 
In order to carry out this activity in language classrooms, teachers can first divide 
the class into two halves: one is the speaker group and the other is the listener group. 
Vinh University Journal of Science, Vol. 48, No. 2B (2019), pp. 70-79 
 73 
Teachers should provide topics for the speaker group to choose. They have some time to 
think about the topic but are not allowed to make notes. When the teacher says “Go”, 
they turn to their first partner and talk about the topic. The listener group is supposed to 
keep silent. After four minutes, they change partners and thus everyone has a different 
partner. The speakers talk to the new partner on the same topic but this time they are 
allowed to do it for only three minutes. Finally, the class change partners again and the 
speakers talk to their third partner on the same topic but for only two minutes. When the 
speaker group has given their talk three times, the listener group can go through the same 
sequence, this time as speakers. 
Previous research has shown that the 4/3/2 technique brings great benefits to EFL 
learners’ speaking fluency development. Nation (1989) noted that this technique has 
three important features. First, the learner has a different audience each time they speak. 
Therefore, they have a chance to focus on communication rather than having to add new 
information if the audience stays the same. Second, the topic remains the same. This 
helps to develop learners’ confidence in their ability to talk and they have less difficulty 
in accessing the language they need in order to deliver the talk. Third, the time is reduced 
each time they talk. This encourages learners to speak faster in order to finish the talk in 
time. Arevart and Nation (1991) added that through 4/3/2 speaking practice, learners 
improve their speaking speed, reduce the number of hesitations and grammatical errors 
they make during the talks. In addition, they tend to use several, more complex 
grammatical constructions in the last of the three talks than they did in the first talk. 
3. Methodology 
3.1. Research questions 
This study set out to examine the effects of the 4/3/2 technique in EFL speaking 
class for Vietnamese learners and aimed to answer the following research questions: 
1. Will the participants improve their speaking speed? 
2. Will the participants develop their speaking accuracy? 
3.2. Participants 
The participants in this experiment were EFL first year students at a university in 
Vietnam. There were 83 of them, 41 in the control group and 42 in the treatment group. 
All of them were around 19 years old and had been studying English for at least 5 years. 
3.3. Materials and Procedure 
Before the treatment, both groups took a general English test and the pre-test. The 
general English test was in the format of KET (Key English Test) with two sections: 
Reading and Writing, and Listening. The Reading and Writing section contained five 
parts of reading and three parts of listening and lasted for 70 minutes. The Listening 
section contained five parts and lasted for about 30 minutes. In the pre-test, the 
participants were asked to talk about a topic for two minutes. They had one minute to 
prepare for their talk. After that, both groups followed the usual English program at the 
university for three months. During the treatment, the experimental group was asked to 
T. T. N. Yen / Improving EFL Vietnamese learners’ speaking ability through the 4/3/2 technique 
 74 
do the 4/3/2 activities once a week while this technique was not introduced to the control 
class. Finally, the two groups did the post-test, which was similar to the pre-test in terms 
of topic familiarity, difficulty and time allowance. 
3.4. Results 
The participants’ speaking speed was measured by calculating the number of 
words spoken per minute and their speaking accuracy was measured by calculating the 
number of errors per 100 words. The per-100-word calculation was used instead of the 
per-minute calculation because otherwise it might not be fair for students who talked 
more in a minute. A student who made fewer errors in a minute was not necessarily 
better than someone who committed more mistakes within this time. It might have been 
possible that they did not say anything at all and thus made no errors. 
 Regarding the participants’ speaking speed, the data revealed that the treatment 
group outperformed the control group on the post-test (see Table 1). The average speed 
at which the control class spoke was 62.3 words per minute (wpm) while the treatment 
class spoke at the average speed of 80.5 wpm. An examination of the speeds reached by 
the treatment group showed that only one participant spoke at the speed of under 60 wpm 
and 14 participants spoke at the speeds of over 80 wpm. The slowest speed was 59 wpm 
and the fastest speed was 107 wpm. Meanwhile, 13 out of 41 participants in the control 
group spoke at the speeds of under 60 wpm and only two reached the speeds of over 80 
wpm. The slowest speed was 27 wpm and the fastest speed was 82 wpm. 
Tab. 1: Means and standard deviations of post-test speaking speeds for both groups 
 Control group Treatment group 
Number of students 41 42 
Mean 62.3 80.5 
SD 9.7 11.4 
The results also indicated that the treatment group significantly increased their 
speaking speed while the control group just gained a slight increase (see Table 2). 
Tab. 2: Means and standard deviations of speed increases for both groups 
 Control group Treatment group 
Number of students 41 42 
Mean 8.8 26.6 
SD 2.4 9.4 
p<0.05 
As it can be seen from Table 2, the treatment group made an average increase of 
26.6 wpm whereas the control group increased their average speed by 8.8 wpm. The one 
way ANOVA test results showed that there was a significant difference between the 
treatment group’s improvement and the control group’s improvement. These results were 
reinforced by the fact that the two groups had similar average scores on the general 
English test and on the pre-test (see Table 3). 
Vinh University Journal of Science, Vol. 48, No. 2B (2019), pp. 70-79 
 75 
Tab. 3: Means and standard deviations of speeds on pre-test and scores 
on general English test for both groups 
 Control group Treatment group 
Number of students 41 42 
Speeds on pre-test Mean 53.4 53.9 
SD 9.9 10.1 
Scores on general English test Mean 62.4 62.0 
SD 21.3 22.2 
The data in Table 3 indicated that the two groups were at similar levels of English 
proficiency and speaking rates at the beginning of the experiment. This eliminates the 
possibility that the increases they made were thanks to their starting level of English, or 
that the control group did not do as well as the treatment group because of the ceiling 
effects. 
Regarding speaking accuracy, it was found that the treatment group and control 
group both made a slight increase from the pre-test to the post-test (see Table 4). The 
data showed that on the pre-test, the treatment group made 17.9 errors per 100 words and 
the control group made 18.3 errors per 100 words. This means that at the beginning of 
the experiment, the two groups did not noticeably differ in terms of error vulnerability. 
On the post-test, the treatment group reduced their error number to 14.1 and the control 
group made it to 15.4. The one way ANOVA test indicated that there was no significant 
difference between the improvement made by the treatment group and that made by the 
control group. However, the result was pedagogically meaningful because it proved that 
the development of fluency does not necessarily have to be accompanied by a decrease in 
accuracy. 
Tab. 4: Means and standard deviations of pre-test 
and post-test accuracy scores for both groups 
 Control group Treatment group 
Number of students 41 42 
Pre-test accuracy Mean 18.3 17.9 
SD 3.5 3.7 
Post-test accuracy Mean 15.4 14.1 
SD 2.8 2.7 
Accuracy improvement Mean 2.9 3.8 
SD 0.5 0.6 
4. Discussion 
This study set out with the aim of exploring the benefits of the 4/3/2 technique in 
EFL speaking ability development. Previous studies in this issue have reported positive 
effects of the technique in increasing learners’ speaking fluency and accuracy (Maurice, 
1987; Nation, 1989; Arevart & Nation, 1991). However, in those studies, the 
improvement was measured by comparing the participants’ performance in their first talk 
with that in their third talk. This research looks at the issue from a different angle. The 
T. T. N. Yen / Improving EFL Vietnamese learners’ speaking ability through the 4/3/2 technique 
 76 
measurement was done outside the treatment and through the use of pre-test and post-
test. 
It was found that the treatment group outperformed the control group in terms of 
speaking speed. While the control group increased their average speed by 8.8 wpm, the 
treatment group increased their average speed by 26.6 wpm. The difference was 
statistically significant. In addition, on the post-test, compared with the control group, 
more students in the treatment group reached the speed of over 80 wpm and fewer 
remained their speed at lower than 60 wpm. These results were reinforced by the fact that 
on the pre-test, the two groups gained similar scores on speaking performance and 
English proficiency. These findings are in line with those of previous studies by Nation 
(1989) and Yang (2014). 
Another obvious finding that emerged from the study is that the treatment group 
made a slight increase in speaking accuracy. Even though the control group also 
improved their accuracy, the fact that their increase was smaller than that of the treatment 
group indicated that the 4/3/2 technique did have an impact on the participants’ ability to 
access the language they needed to deliver the talk. This result collaborates Nation 
(1989)’s finding and confirms that fluency and accuracy do not have to be in a trade-off 
relationship. 
There are possible explanations for the improvement that the treatment group 
gained. First, the change of audience over the three talking times might have freed the 
speakers from the burden of having to think of new ideas to k