English Speaking Fluency and Accuracy Among Informatics and Civil Engineering Students

Derliana Hasibuan, Dian Anggraini Harahap, Harry Sambayu, Datulina Ginting

Abstract


This study examines fluency and accuracy in English speaking among Informatics and Civil Engineering students at Asahan University. Forty-five second-semester participants (25 Informatics, 20 Civil Engineering) completed structured speaking tasks and semi-structured interviews. Using the Complexity–Accuracy–Fluency (CAF) framework, performances were assessed for speech rate, pauses, grammatical control, and lexical appropriateness. Results show that communicative-oriented instruction enhanced fluency, producing smoother delivery and reduced hesitation, while grammar-focused instruction improved accuracy, yielding fewer errors and more precise lexical choices. Interviews revealed that communicative classes encouraged confidence and risk-taking, whereas grammar-focused classes increased metalinguistic awareness but reduced spontaneity. The findings highlight that fluency and accuracy are dynamically shaped by instructional emphasis. Balanced pedagogical approaches integrating meaning-focused interaction with attention to form are recommended to cultivate oral competence that is both communicatively effective and linguistically precise in Indonesian EFL contexts.

This study examines fluency and accuracy in English speaking among Informatics and Civil Engineering students at Asahan University. Forty-five second-semester participants (25 Informatics, 20 Civil Engineering) completed structured speaking tasks and semi-structured interviews. Using the Complexity–Accuracy–Fluency (CAF) framework, performances were assessed for speech rate, pauses, grammatical control, and lexical appropriateness. Results show that communicative-oriented instruction enhanced fluency, producing smoother delivery and reduced hesitation, while grammar-focused instruction improved accuracy, yielding fewer errors and more precise lexical choices. Interviews revealed that communicative classes encouraged confidence and risk-taking, whereas grammar-focused classes increased metalinguistic awareness but reduced spontaneity. The findings highlight that fluency and accuracy are dynamically shaped by instructional emphasis. Balanced pedagogical approaches integrating meaning-focused interaction with attention to form are recommended to cultivate oral competence that is both communicatively effective and linguistically precise in Indonesian EFL contexts.

Keywords: fluency, accuracy, English speaking, Informatics Engineering, Civil Engineering


Keywords


fluency; accuracy; English speaking; Informatics Engineering; Civil Engineering

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300303

DeKeyser, R. M. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (3rd ed., pp. 94–112). Routledge.

Ellis, R., Li, S., & Zhu, Y. (2020). The effects of corrective feedback on the acquisition of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(3), 457–482. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000580

Han, Z. (2024). Advancing reliability in L2 performance assessment: Methodological considerations for rating consistency. Language Testing, 41(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231123456

Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2021). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance and proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam & I. Bartning (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 503–528). Cambridge University Press.

Lambert, C., & Aubrey, S. (2021). Task-based language teaching and L2 speaking development. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 909–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913575

Li, C., & Sui, M. (2025). The relationship between complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 English speech: Individual differences and dynamic patterns. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 15(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.28006

Olkkonen, S., Snellings, P., & Veivo, O. (2024). Cognitive fluency in L2: The effect of automatic and controlled lexical processing on speech rate. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 53(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-024-10099-0

Peltonen, P. (2023). Fluency revisited. ELT Journal, 78(4), 489–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccad047 (doi.org in Bing)

Setyawan, S., Dewangga, V., & Pudyastuti, Z. E. (2026). Speech fluency and accuracy as indicators of academic speaking proficiency. Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication, 12(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.25047/jeapco.v12i1.6019

Skehan, P. (2022). Task-based language teaching and speaking performance: Theoretical developments and research directions. Language Teaching, 55(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000363

Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2020). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641900051X

Tavakoli, P., & Wright, C. (2020). Investigating L2 fluency: Past, present, and future. Language Teaching, 53(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000221

Wang, W., Rezaei, Y. M., & Izadpanah, S. (2024). Speaking accuracy and fluency among EFL learners: The role of creative thinking, emotional intelligence, and academic




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31004/jele.v11i2.2320

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Derliana Hasibuan, Dian Anggraini Harahap, Harry Sambayu, Datulina Ginting

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.