271 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 6 (2). 2016. 271-292 doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.5 http://www.ssllt.amu.edu.pl Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing Jenni Alisaari University of Turku, Finland jenni.alisaari@utu.fi Leena Maria Heikkola Åbo Akademi University, Finland lheikkol@abo.fi Abstract Fluency is an essential part of a language learner’s skills. Despite various stud- ies on fluency, little is known about the effects of different pedagogical meth- ods on the development of written fluency. In this paper, we examine how different pedagogical methods affect the development of second language learners’ written fluency. Participants in this study were 51 language learners enrolled in two intensive Finnish courses. The pedagogical methods investi- gated in the study were singing, listening to songs, and reciting lyrics of songs. Written stories based on cartoon strips were used as a pretest and a posttest. The fluency of written stories was analyzed based on the number of words used in the texts. Differences between the groups taught by different peda- gogical methods were analyzed. The results seem to indicate that fluency in- creased the most in the singing groups compared to the other groups. There was also a statistically significant difference between the singing group and the group reciting lyrics, as well as between the group listening to songs and the group reciting lyrics. Keywords: fluency; L2 writing; singing Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 272 1. Introduction Fluency plays an important role in language production. Language learners are often judged as fluent users of language if they use their second language with ease and in a native-like way (Housen, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2012). According to Chenoweth and Hayes (2001), written fluency is especially important for second language (L2) learners’ success in their studies. Investigating fluency, as well as accuracy and complexity, is a popular topic within second language acquisition studies (see e.g., Housen et al., 2012). However, little attention has been paid to the relationship between different pedagogical methods and fluency in L2 writing. A number of studies have reported the benefits of music and singing for learning (see e.g., Legg, 2009; Medina, 2000). Music stimulates memory and in- creases motivation and interest in learning situations (Abbott, 2002; Eerola & Saarikallio, 2010, pp. 265-266; Stansell, 2005). Singing, in turn, makes learning processes more efficient by activating both brain hemispheres simultaneously and combining language learning with emotions (Lake, 2002, pp. 102-103). Re- cent neuroimaging studies have shown that music and language are intertwined on the neural level (Besson, Schön, Moreno, Santos, & Magne, 2007; Putkinen, Tervaniemi, Saarikivi, de Vent, & Huotilainen, 2014), and that music can improve language skills (Moreno, Marques, Santos, Santos, Castro, & Besson, 2009). Pre- vious studies have found that singing has a positive effect on second language learning, especially on vocabulary (Coyle & Gómez Garcia, 2014; Legg, 2009). However, little is known about how singing and music affect written fluency. The objective of this study is to investigate how three different pedagogi- cal methods affect written fluency in stories by 51 learners of Finnish. The ped- agogical methods used in the study are singing, listening to songs and reciting the lyrics of the same songs. The data were collected by a pretest and a posttest in which students wrote stories based on comic strips. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the data. The article is divided into five sections. The first section lays out the theo- retical dimensions of the research and looks at how singing affects language learning. The second section explains the methodology of the study. The third section includes results, focusing on how the different pedagogical approaches affect written fluency. In the fourth section, we discuss the results and their im- plications. Finally, conclusions and areas for further research are discussed. 1.1. Effect of singing on learning The first serious discussions and analyses of the effect of music on learning emerged during the 1970s with a study by Hurwitz, Wolff, Bortnick, and Kokás (1975), in Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 273 which they found that children’s literacy skills were enhanced with musical prac- tices. In recent years, a number of other studies have shown that music and singing have positive effects on learning (Abbott, 2002; Legg, 2009; Stansell, 2005). Recent evidence from studies examining language learning suggests that music and singing greatly enhance verbatim recall and receptive learning of vocabulary and grammar (Alisaari, 2015; Coyle & Gómez Gracia, 2014; Dowling, Tillmann, & Ayers, 2002; Legg, 2009; Ludke, Ferreira, & Overy, 2014; Medina, 2000; Murphey, 1990). Previous studies have investigated the effects of singing, melody and rhythm on language learning. A number of studies have reported that melody combined with language helps learners memorize words more efficiently than mere linguistic input (Ludke et al., 2014; Sammler et al., 2010; Thaut, Peterson, & McIntosh, 2005; Yalch, 1991). Furthermore, it has been suggested that along with melody, rhythm enhances word memorization more than traditional ways of presenting language. Some studies suggest that rhythm is, in fact, the most essential element in musical presentation for language learning (Purnell-Webb & Speelman, 2008; Stahl, Kotz, Henseler, Turner, & Geyer, 2011). However, if the musical or rhythmic presentation is too difficult, it may impede learning (Racette & Peretz, 2007; Wallace, 1994). A study by Ludke et al. (2014) investigated how singing, rhythmical speech and normal speech affected the learning of a Hun- garian text; the results indicated that singing is the most efficient method for learning to memorize a text. So far, very few studies have investigated the effects of music on language learning in a classroom setting (Sposet, 2008). In the language classroom, the positive effects of singing are not limited to memorizing words or grammar. Learners are able to participate in singing from the beginning of their language studies (Domoney & Harris, 1993). Learners at the beginners’ level may sing a song’s chorus at first and gradually broaden their participation (Lake, 2002, p. 100). Furthermore, singing together provides learners with more opportunities to practice producing the target language. As a result, singing may assist the development of fluency for L2 learners. 1.2. Fluency in second language writing In second language acquisition research, fluency is generally defined as the language user’s ability to produce language at normal speed without interruptions (Skehan, 2009, p. 510), or as the automatic production of language (Segalowitz, 2000). Written fluency is generally determined through analyzing the number of words in a written text, the text’s length (see e.g., Fathman & Whalley, 1990, p. 185; Reid, 1990, p. 195), or the amount of time used for writing (Chenowith & Hayes, 2001, p. 84; Skehan, 2009, p. 511). Fluency has also been determined as the number of corrections the Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 274 learner makes (Knoch, 2007), although Abdel Latif (2012) argues that corrections may not be related to writing fluency. Alisaari and Heikkola (2014) have also previously shown that between a pretest and a posttest there was no difference in corrections measured as actual words and percentages. Due this, in this paper, we measure flu- ency by examining the number of words produced in a limited time. The language learner’s knowledge of the target language affects fluency. Fluency increases when the language learner’s knowledge of grammar and vo- cabulary grows (Chenowith & Hayes, 2001, p. 89; Williams, 2012, p. 322). The more fluent the writer is, the less conscious attention is needed for producing single words. If spelling requires extensive attention, the writer may not be able to focus on the content of the text while writing (Chenowith & Hayes, 2001, p. 82). In addition, according to Housen et al. (2012), more automatic language processing leads to more fluent production of language. Towell (2012, p. 56) also argues that a learner is fluent if his or her knowledge is “available via practiced processes.” The more automatic the recall of a language pattern, the easier and more fluent the production becomes (Towell, 2012). Recent evidence suggests that input plays an essential role in the develop- ment of fluency (see e.g., Williams, 2012, p. 322). In this study, we assume that music is important for written fluency because singing stimulates memory, and memory has been shown to play a major role in both the writing process and written fluency (Chenowith & Hayes, 2001, p. 84; Skehan, 2009, p. 511). Towell states that “it is through language production that what is learnt becomes proce- duralized and stored in memory in way which (a) make it accessible in real-time and (b) give it an economic and stable form” (2012, p. 61). Through singing, the language learner can practice using the target language, while the melody of the song helps the learner memorize words and patterns in the language. The aim of this study is to investigate how different teaching methods affect written fluency. We examine whether singing, listening to songs, and reciting song lyrics have different effects on the development of written fluency. Our hypothesis is that singing increases written fluency more than other methods, since singing has already been shown in many studies to benefit language learning (see e.g., Coyle & Gómez Garcia, 2014; Ludke et al., 2014; Schön, Boyer, Moreno, Besson, Peretz, & Kolinsky, 2008). Our second hypothesis is that reciting lyrics increases written flu- ency more than listening to songs, since rhythm has been shown to be an important factor in language learning (Purnell-Webb & Speelman, 2008). 2. Method In this section, we present the participants of the study, the three teaching meth- ods under investigation, and our methods for collecting and analyzing data. Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 275 2.1. Participants Two intensive courses in Finnish were organized by one Finnish university in coop- eration with the Center for International Mobility (CIMO). The courses were orga- nized simultaneously and lasted for approximately four weeks. The course partici- pants (n = 67) were preselected for Course I or IIA by CIMO and the local course organizers based on their Finnish language proficiency. All 67 participants gave their written consent to participate in the research. The participants in Course I had studied Finnish for 0.5 to 1 year, and they were mainly at the A1-A2 language proficiency level (Council of Europe, 2011). The participants in Course IIA had stud- ied Finnish for 1 to 2 years, and they were at the A2-B1 language proficiency level (Council of Europe, 2011). All the participants were university students between the ages of 18 and 33, mainly from Europe and North America. Originally, the lan- guage proficiency levels were evaluated by the participants’ teachers at their home universities. Later, the levels were re-evaluated by the authors. On the first day of the courses, the students took a test given by the course organizers. The test focused on grammatical knowledge and tested mainly pas- sive knowledge of the language. Based on the test, the students in each course were divided into three groups, and altogether six different groups were formed, as shown in Table 1. The authors of the study had influence neither over this test nor the group division. The division made by the organizers was not ideal for the purpose of the study, but since this was a classroom study, the au- thors had to settle for these conditions. Table 1 The division into groups in Course I and Course IIA made by the organizers Course I Course IIA Singing group I n = 11 Listening group I n = 10 Reciting group I n =12 Singing group IIA n = 11 Listening group IIA n = 11 Reciting group IIA n = 12 In this study, we examined the effect of three different teaching methods on written fluency: singing, listening to songs, and reciting song lyrics. At both course levels, singing was assigned to the weakest group, listening to songs to the middle group, and reciting song lyrics to the strongest group based on the test given by the course organizers, which mostly tested grammatical knowledge. In an ideal research setting, all the groups would have been bal- anced by their language proficiency. However, the differences in the language proficiency levels between the different groups were not great. Since the original language proficiency level estimates were made by many different teachers, the authors re-evaluated the participants’ written lan- guage proficiency levels according to the common European framework of ref- Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 276 erence (Council of Europe, 2011). The evaluations were based on the texts writ- ten for the pretest of the study in order to have more consistent assessments. The pretest was not the same as the level test given by the course organizers. The inter-rater reliability was over 95% and the remaining cases were assigned into language proficiency levels through negotiation between the authors. The participants were all at the A1 to B1 level, as shown in Table 2. To make the results of the study comparable between groups, only the participants at the A2 level (n = 52) were selected for the study. These students formed the majority of all the participants (77.6%). One of the students from the Course I reciting group (Student IR1) was left out of the analysis since she wrote only one of the stories on the posttest. Altogether, 51 students were included in the analysis. Table 2 Numbers of course participants in different groups at different language proficiency levels Groups Level A1 A2 B1 Singing group I 7 4 0 Listening group I 1 9 0 Reciting group I 2 9 1 Singing group IIA 1 10 0 Listening group IIA 0 11 0 Reciting group IIA 0 9 3 Total (n = 67) 11 52 4 2.2. Teaching methods The Finnish language and culture courses included 80 hours of teaching. Instruc- tion in the course was based on a functional and communicative approach and included both language and culture classes. Instruction was organized as work- shops: vocabulary and grammar, reading comprehension, and interaction. In ad- dition, during the course, all the students participated in 7 teaching sessions re- lated to this study. These sessions were spaced evenly throughout the course (see Appendix A). The sessions were 15 minutes each, altogether 105 minutes of the total of 80 hours of instruction. They were organized in the following way: Singing groups learned Finnish by singing, listening groups learned Finnish by listening to songs, and reciting groups learned Finnish by reciting the lyrics of the songs. The same songs were used in all the groups; the only difference between the groups was the teaching method. The authors taught these research-related sessions only, and they did not participate in the rest of the instruction offered in the course. The rest of the 80 hours of instruction included in the course was taught by three different teachers in each course, altogether six different teachers, who were each responsible for one workshop theme in each course. Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 277 The songs used in the teaching moments were Finnish children's songs (11) and pop songs (7). The information about the 18 songs which were used are in- cluded in Appendix B. The children’s songs had easier lyrics and melodies, while the pop songs were more challenging. Both types of songs included similar vocab- ulary and grammar, and they were selected to suit the daily themes of the course, including nature, food, literature, and sauna. Often the children’s songs were sung, listened to, or recited during two or more sessions. In the singing and recit- ing groups, some children's songs were combined with play or some gestures and movements (8 out of all the 11 children's songs) since embodiment is considered to enhance learning, as well as understanding and recall of the lyrics (see e.g., Coyle & Gomez Gracia, 2014; Lake, 2002, pp. 102-103). All the lyrics were given to the students as illustrated handouts (see an example in Appendix C) to facilitate understanding. In addition, the meaning of lyrics was discussed in all the groups. In the singing groups, the authors taught children’s songs to the students in the following manner: One author sang one verse of the song as a model, and then the other author repeated the verse together with the students. The whole song was first learned in this way, and, after this, the song was sung together a cappella or with a recording of the song. Often the children’s songs were sung using gestures and movements typical for that song, and they were sung during two or more sessions. Recordings of the pop songs were always played, and they were listened to and sung at the same time. Often the pop songs were sung only once during the learning sessions. The meanings of all the songs were discussed either before or after singing them. Listening groups listened to the same songs as the singing groups. Because in these groups the students did not practice singing or reciting songs, there was more time to listen to more songs than in the singing or reciting groups. Thus, the amount of input was the same in all the groups. While the songs were played, the participants actively listened to them and paid attention to the lyrics on the handouts. In this group, no gestures or movements were combined with listening. The reciting groups recited the lyrics of the songs rhythmically. The lyrics were introduced to the participants by one of the authors reciting one verse of the lyrics at a time, after which the other author repeated it together with the students. Then, the whole song was recited together. A few songs were also re- cited in pairs expressing different moods. Gestures and movements related to the songs were used similarly to the singing groups. As in the other groups, the meanings of the songs were discussed before or after they were recited. The singing groups’ and the reciting groups’ research-related activities dif- fered from each other only in that the singing groups used melody in addition to rhythm. The listening groups differed the most from the other two groups since in this group the students’ role was very passive, while the students in the Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 278 other groups were invited to actively participate in producing Finnish either by singing or reciting. The research-related songs were sung, recited or listened to only during the research-related sessions instructed by the authors. These ses- sions were independent from the rest of the course. Besides these research- related teaching sessions, the courses were the same for all the participants within their course level. 2.3. Data collection and analysis The data was collected by a pretest and a posttest in which the students were asked to write stories based on two comic strips focusing on everyday situations. The pretest and posttest were identical. The first comic strip consisted of six pic- tures depicting a story about two birds, one of which flew out of a cage, and their owner, a young boy, looking for the lost bird. The other comic strip con- sisted of five pictures depicting a black cat that went to sleep on an armchair on which its owner sat down. These comic strips were designed for language learn- ing and teaching by Schubi (1990). The comic strips used for the pretest and posttest were the same. The pretest was carried out on the first day of the course, and the posttest on the last day of the course. On both occasions, the participants had approximately 60 minutes to write the two texts. In this study, written fluency was operationalized as the number of words used in a written text. We used quantitative analysis to examine the number of the words and the changes in them from the pretest to posttest. We carried out a repeated measures ANOVA test and calculated effect sizes for the different groups in order to investigate whether there was an interaction between written fluency—that is, the number of words produced in a limited amount of time— and the different teaching methods. 3. Development of written fluency in different groups In this section, we examine 51 course participants at the A2 language proficiency level. First, we look at the development of written fluency in the different groups: the singing groups, the listening groups and the reciting groups. The six groups will be consolidated into three groups based on the teaching method used. For all 51 participants, we examined written fluency by looking at the number of words produced on the pretest and posttest. On average, written fluency increased by 35% (min. -31%, max. 152%, SD = 39%). As shown in Figure 1, in all the groups, written fluency increased on average. The numbers of actual words used on the pretest and posttest by individual participants are presented in Appendix D. Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 279 Figure 1 Percentage fluency gains/losses for the groups taught by different methods Written fluency, examined as a number of words, increased the most in the singing group and the least in the listening group. A repeated measures ANOVA test was carried out to find out whether there was an interaction between the development of written fluency and different teaching methods. The interaction between the increase in fluency and the different teaching methods was not sta- tistically significant (F(2, 48) = .729; df = 2; p = .488; eta squared = .027). However, there was a statistically significant difference in the fluency between the pretest and posttest (F(2, 48) = 43.522; df = 2; p < .001; eta squared = .465). We also carried out post hoc tests to do multiple comparisons between the three different groups (singing, listening, and reciting). There was a statisti- cally significant difference between the singing and reciting groups (p = .014; 95%CI = -55%, -5%), and between the listening and reciting groups (p = .013; 95%CI = -51%, -5%). There was no difference between the singing and listening groups (p = .970; 95%CI = -26%, 21%). Also, looking at effect sizes, there seemed to be a difference between the singing and reciting groups (Cohen’s d = .39). The effect size was near medium, which suggests that the difference between these groups could have been statistically significant with a bigger sample size. The Singing n = 14 Listening to songs n = 20 Reciting lyrics n = 17 Teaching method Pe rc en ta ge flu en cy ga in /l os s Max. 152% Min. -20% Mean 44% Max. 125% Min. -31% Mean 31% Max. 85% Min. -1% Mean 32% Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 280 effect sizes between the singing group and the listening group, and between the listening and the reciting group, however, were quite small, with Cohen’s d =.25 and Cohen’s d =.15, respectively. Moreover, the group numbers were quite small and somewhat unequal, so it is not possible to draw very strong conclusions based on the effect sizes. In the singing group (n = 14), fluency increased on average by 44% (min. - 20%, max. 152%, SD = 51%), considerably more than in the other two groups. Even though fluency increased in this group on average, fluency decreased for two of the participants’ written stories (by -20 % and by -10% respectively). The reciting group (n = 17) showed the second largest increase in written fluency, on average by 32% (min. -1%, max. 85%, SD = 32.36%). All except one participant increased their written fluency from the pretest to the posttest. Participant IIR4’s written fluency decreased by 1% between the tests. Also, one participant’s (IR8) performance differed strongly from the rest of the group, as can be seen in Figure 1. Her fluency increased by 85.07%. The increase in written fluency was 29% on average for this group, if this deviant result is left out. However, the difference between the group mean and the mean excluding the deviant result is not great. In the listening group (n = 20), written fluency increased the least, on average by 31% (min. -31%, max. 125%, SD = 25%). In this group, four stu- dents’ fluency decreased, by -31%, -26%, -18% and -4%. 4. Discussion Previous studies have shown that music has a positive effect on language learning (see e.g., Coyle & Gómez Gracia, 2014; Legg, 2009; Medina, 2000). In addition, rhythm has been found to be important for language learning (Purnell-Webb & Speelman, 2008; Stahl et al., 2011), although some studies have also shown that melody can enhance language learning more than rhythm (Ludke et al., 2014). In this study, our objective was to study whether singing enhances written fluency more than listening to songs or reciting song lyrics. Participants in this study were 51 students enrolled in two intensive Finnish courses organized by one Finnish university in cooperation with the Center of International Mobility (CIMO). The participants were selected from 67 students in the courses based on their level of language proficiency. The levels varied from A1 to B1, but since more than 75% of the students were at A2, these 51 students were chosen for the study. We examined fluency by counting the number of words in a text and com- paring pretest and posttest results, as is typical in second language acquisition research. We hypothesized that written fluency would increase the most in the singing group. We also hypothesized that written fluency would increase more in the reciting group than in the listening group. Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 281 Looking at descriptive statistics, on average, written fluency in the singing group increased by 44%, in the reciting group by 32%, and in the listening group 31%. Looking at the changes in the fluency, the singing group enhanced their performance the most. The listening group and the reciting group differed only narrowly in their performance. Repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc tests were carried out to inves- tigate the possible relationship between the teaching methods used and written fluency. In all the groups, fluency increased from the pretest to posttest statisti- cally significantly, although there was no statistically significant interaction be- tween fluency and the different teaching methods in the ANOVA. However, the post hoc tests showed that there was a statistically significant difference be- tween the singing and the reciting groups, as well as between the listening and reciting groups. Also, looking at effect sizes, there seemed to be a considerable difference between the singing and reciting groups. Even though there was a significant difference between the reciting and listen- ing groups, looking at the means, the listening group and the reciting group did not seem to differ; in both groups, the increase in fluency was approximately 30%. This was not in accordance with our hypothesis: We expected the reciting group to per- form better than the listening group since rhythm had a greater role in the reciting group. However, the post hoc tests revealed that there was a difference between these groups although it is not clear which teaching method has affected written flu- ency more. In some studies, rhythm has been shown to be more important for lan- guage learning than melody (Purnell-Webb & Speelman, 2008; Stahl et al., 2011). In this study, there was also a statistically significant difference between the singing group and the reciting group. The groups’ means seem to suggest that written fluency increased more in the singing group than in the reciting group, 44% and 32% respectively. This would suggest that singing has a stronger effect on written fluency. Comparing the singing group and listening group, there was no statistically significant difference between them even though the singing group increased their written fluency on average by a greater percent- age, 44% compared to the 31% of the listening group. In the research literature, there is no consensus regarding the roles of rhythm and tone in second language learning; some have shown rhythm to be the most important factor for language learning (see e.g., Purnell-Webb & Speelman, 2008), while others have argued that tone has a greater effect (see e.g., Hébert & Peretz, 1997; Schön et al., 2008). However, some studies have shown that both rhythm and tone may sup- port language learning and memory equally (Ludke et al., 2014). In this study, written fluency increased in all the three groups at the group level. However, written fluency decreased in the posttest texts written by a few par- ticipants (1-4 people per group). In the singing group, written fluency decreased in Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 282 the texts of two participants. This may be explained by the fact that these partici- pants’ pretest stories were long to begin with. In addition, their posttest texts were structurally more complex, and more like narratives than descriptions, which re- sulted in denser texts. This would suggest a higher level of language proficiency and an increase in textual complexity, which would be an interesting research topic for the future. According to some researchers (Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Skehan, 2009), increases in complexity and accuracy often have a negative effect on fluency. In the listening group, four participants’ written fluency decreased. Reasons for this may be similar to those mentioned for the singing group. In addition, these participants’ posttest stories were not as detailed as their pretest stories because they were more like narratives than descriptives. In the reciting group, one partic- ipant’s written fluency did not change from the pretest to the posttest. While drawing conclusions, it has to be taken into consideration that in two of the three groups (singing and reciting), gestures and play were used in addition to the tone and/or rhythm. In the listening groups no gestures or play were used. This is another factor besides the factors under investigation, and it may have affected the results of the study. The reason for not using gestures and play in the listening groups was that the participants were adults, and play and using gestures would not have been natural in the listening condition. Also, gestures and play were only used in 8 out of 18 songs used in the study, so the greater part of the input during the sessions was without gesture and play. It should also be noted that using the same task in the pretest and posttest, as we have chosen to do in this study, may also enhance fluency (see e.g., Larsen-Free- man, 2006, p. 595). However, even though the repeated use of the same task may have affected fluency in this study, the task was administered to all the three groups in a similar fashion, so the effects of using the same tasks in the pretest and posttest were the same for all the groups. The study was carried out during two intensive Finnish language courses. Since the course schedules were very tight, the authors were not able to influ- ence the assignment to the six different groups. The assignments to the three different teaching groups in Course I and Course IIA, six groups all together, were made by the course organizers based on a test measuring grammatical knowledge and passive language knowledge. Obviously, this was not ideal. Due to the variability of language proficiency levels in the six groups (A1-B1), we de- cided to focus on the participants at the A2 level. This seems appropriate, since over 75% of the participants were at this level. The proficiency levels were esti- mated by the two authors based on the written stories produced by the partici- pants on the research-related pretest on the first day of the two courses. In the future, although classroom experiments are valuable and can shed light on lan- guage learning in authentic environments, it would be useful to study participant Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 283 groups in a more controlled manner. This way, sample size, language proficiency, and other factors could be controlled to a larger extent, which would increase the reliability of the study. Other researchers have studied the effect of singing on language learning with shorter duration of the instruction period (e.g., Ludke et al., 2014). However, in this study we wanted to do an intervention in the class- room in an actual course so that the results could be compared with and applied to actual classroom teaching. This was our attempt to ensure the ecological va- lidity of the study. 5. Conclusions According to our results, singing seems to be a good method for second lan- guage teaching, at least at the A2 proficiency level. We found statistically signif- icant differences between the singing and reciting groups, as well as between the listening and reciting groups. The effect sizes point to there being a differ- ence especially between the singing and the reciting groups. Also, the average increase in written fluency was the highest in the singing group compared to the other two groups. With this study, our aim was to initiate a series of studies on the effects of singing on second language learning. Next, we will concentrate on other aspects of second language acquisition besides written fluency, for example pronunciation and spoken fluency, as well as accuracy and complexity both in writing and in speech. In this study, we have shown that there are some differences between the three teaching methods used in the study, and that there is some evidence that singing is the most effective method used in the study. However, further research with a greater number of participants and more controlled language proficiency level is needed in order to draw more exact conclusions on whether singing is a more effective teaching method than listening to songs or reciting song lyrics. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people for their help in conducting this study and writing this paper: Mariia Dunaeva, Kirsti Siitonen, Marja Vauras, Elina Kouki, Eero Laakkonen, and Nina Reiman. We also thank the anonymous review- ers who provided useful feedback on an earlier version of this article. In addi- tion, we would like to offer our special thanks to the participants and the staff of the summer courses I and IIA for participating in this study. Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 284 References Abbott, M. (2002). Using music to promote L2 learning among adult learners. TESOL Journal, 11(1), 10-17. doi: 10.1002/j.1949-3533.2002.tb00061.x Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2012). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34 (1), 99-105. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/applin/ams073 Alisaari, J. (2015). Laulaminen paikallissijojen harjoittelun menetelmänä S2- opetuksessa. In M. Kauppinen, M. Rautiainen, & M.Tarnanen (Eds.), Elävä ainepedagogiikka. Ainedidaktiikan symposium Jyväskylässä 13.-14.2.2014. Suomen ainedidaktisen tutkimusseuran julkaisuja. Ainedidaktisia tutkimuksia 9 (pp. 210-224). Jyväskylä: Suomen ainedidaktinen tutkimusseura ry. Ret- rieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/154156 Alisaari, J., & Heikkola, L. M. (2014, November). Opetusmenetelmän vaikutus su- omi toisena kielenä-kirjoittamisen sujuvuuteen. Paper presented at the Finnish Educational Research Association Conference, Oulu, Finland. Besson, M., Schön, D., Moreno, S., Santos, A., & Magne, C. (2007). Influence of musical expertise and musical training on pitch processing in music and language. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 25, 399-410. Re- trieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943015 Council of Europe (2011). Common European framework of reference for learning, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/ t/dg4/education/elp/elp-reg/cefr_EN.asp Chenowith, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0741088301018001004 Coyle, Y., & Gómez Gracia, R. (2014). Using songs to enhance L2 vocabulary ac- quisition in preschool children. Teaching English to Young Learners, 68(3), 276-285. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu015 Domoney, L., & Harris, S. (1993). Justified and ancient: Pop music in EFL classrooms. ELT Journal, 47(3), 234-241. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/47.3.234 Dowling, W. J., Tillmann, B., & Ayers, D. F. (2002). Memory and the experience of hear- ing music. Music Perception, 19, 249-276. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ mp.2001.19.2.249 Eerola, T., & Saarikallio, S. (2010). Musiikki ja tunteet. In J. Louhi-vuori & S. Saarikallio (Eds.), Musiikkipsykologia (pp. 259-278). Jyväskylä: Atena. Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. 1990. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing. Research in- sights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 285 Hébert, S., & Peretz, I. (1997). Recognition of music in long-term memory: Are melodic and temporal patterns equal partners? Memory and Cognition, 25, 518-533. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Ved- der (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, ac- curacy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hurwitz, I., Wolff, P. H., Bortnick, B. D., & Kokás, K. (1975). Nonmusical effects of the Kodály music curriculum in primary grade children. Journal of Learning Disa- bilities, 8, 167-174. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221947500800310 Knoch, U. (2007). Diagnostic writing assessment: The development of and valida- tion of a rating scale (Dissertation). The University of Auckland, Australia. Lake, R. (2002). Enhancing acquisition through music. Journal of the Imagination in Lan- guage Learning and Teaching, 7, 98-106. Retrieved from https://www.njcu.edu/ cill/vol7/lake.html Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 Legg, R. (2009). Using music to accelerate language learning: An experimental study. Research in Education, 82, 1-12. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/rie.82.1 Ludke, K. M., Ferreira, F., & Overy, K. (2014). Singing can facilitate foreign language learning. Memory and Cognition, 42, 41-52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/ s13421-013-0342-5 Medina, S. L. (2000). The effects of music on second language vocabulary acquisi- tion. ERIC Database. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/48477187/ The-Effects-of-Music-Upon-Second-Language-Vocabulary-Acquisition-ERIC Moreno, S., Marques, C., Santos, A., Santos, M., Castro, S. L., & Besson, M. (2009). Mu- sical training influences linguistic abilities in 8-year-old children: More evidence for brain plasticity. Cereb. Cortex, 19, 712-723. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn120 Murphey, T. (1990). Song and music in language learning: An analysis of pop song lyrics and the use of song and music in teaching English as a foreign language. Bern: Peter Lang. Purnell-Webb, P., & Speelman, C. (2008). Effects of music on memory for text. Per- ceptual and Motor Skills, 106, 958-962. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/ pms.106.3.927-957 Putkinen, V. Tervaniemi, M. Saarikivi, K. de Vent, N., & Huotilainen, M. (2014) Investigating the effects of musical training on functional brain develop- ment with a novel Melodic MMN paradigm. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 110, 8-15. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2014.01.007 Racette , A., & Peretz, I. (2007). Learning lyrics: To sing or not to sing? Memory Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 286 and Cognition, 35, 242-253. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03193445 Reid, J. (1990). Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastive rhetoric perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writ- ing. Research insights for the classroom (pp. 191-210). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Sammler, D., Baird, A., Valabrègue, R., Clément, S., Dupont, S., Belin, P., & Sam- son, S. (2010). The relationship of lyrics and tunes in the processing of unfamiliar songs: An fMRI adaptation study. Journal of Neuroscience, 10, 3572-3578. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2751-09.2010 Schön, D., Boyer, M, Moreno, S., Besson, M., Peretz, I., & Kolinsky, R. (2008). Songs as an aid for language acquisition. Cognition, 106, 975-983. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.005 Schubi. (1990). Und dann? Bildergeschichten. Schaffhausen: SCHUBI Lernmedeln AG. Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200-219). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating com- plexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 Sposet, B. A. (2008). The role of music in second language acquisition: A biblio- graphical review of seventy years of research, 1937-2007. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Meller. Stahl, B., Kotz, S. A., Henseler, I., Turner, R., & Geyer, S. (2011). Rhythm in disguise: Why singing may not hold the key to recovery from aphasia. Brain, 134, 3083-3093. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awr240 Stansell, J. (2005). The use of music in learning languages: A review of the literature. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Re- trieved from http://mste.illinois.edu/course/ci407su02/students/stansell/ Literature%20Review%201.htm Thaut, M. H., Peterson, D. A., & McIntosh, G. C. (2005). Temporal entrainment of cognitive functions: Musical mnemonics induce brain plasticity and oscilla- tory synchrony in neural networks underlying memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1060, 243-254. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/ annals.1360.017 Towell, R. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency from the perspective of psy- cholinguistic second language acquisition research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complex- ity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 47-69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 287 Wallace, W. T. (1994). Memory for music: Effect of melody on recall of text. Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1471-1485. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.20.6.1471 Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321-331. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 Yalch, R. F. (1991). Memory in a jingle jungle: Music as a mnemonic device in communicating advertising slogans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 268- 275. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.76.2.268 Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 288 APPENDIX A The schedule for the research related singing, listening and reciting sessions, and the pre- test and posttest. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Week 1 Students arrive in Finland Level test Pretest Session 1 Session 2 Week 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Week 3 Session 6 Session 7 Week 4 Posttest Students leave Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 289 APPENDIX B The list of songs used in the study (C = children’s song, MP = movement and play) 1. Aamulla herätys (C, MP), trad., Finnish lyrics by Liisa Tenkku 2. Bingo (C, MP), trad. 3. Leipuri Hiiva (C, MP), trad. 4. Löylyä lissää by Tapio Rautavaara, trad., lyrics by Reino W. Palmroth 5. Makkaralaulu (C, MP), trad. 6. Matkalaulu (C, MP), music & lyrics by Petter Ohls 7. Matkustaja by Egotrippi, music & lyrics by Knipi 8. Ostakaa makkaraa (C), trad. 9. Popsi, popsi porkkanaa (C, MP), music by Markku Kopisto, lyrics by Asta Kaukonen & Chrisse Johansson 10. Suosi suomalaista by Ultra Bra, music by Kerkko Koskinen, lyrics by Pekka Lahdenmäki 11. Tiitiäisen tuutulaulu (C), music by Risto Suurla, lyrics by Kirsi Kunnas 12. Tällaisena kesäyönä by Scandinavian Music Group, music by Joel Melasniemi, lyrics by Terhi Kokkonen 13. Täti Monika (C, MP), trad. 14. Ukko Nooa (C), trad., lyrics by C. M. Bellman 15. U-L-O-S by Puhuva kone 16. Vadelmavene by Kasmir, music & lyrics by Kasmir, Hank Solo, Jonas W. Karlsson, Mikko Kuoppala 17. Vihreän joen rannalla (kauan sitten), by Eppu Normaali, music by Pantse Syrjä, lyrics by Martti Syrjä 18. Ville ja Valle (C, MP), music by Eero Koivistoinen, lyrics by Kirsi Kunnas Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 290 APPENDIX C Ville ja Valle Ville ja Valle mökissänsä, elivät olivat yksinänsä. Ovi oli lukossa, ja ikkunat oli tukossa ja piipun päällä oli hattu. Ville oli Ville ja Valle oli Valle, senhän voi kuuluttaa kaikkialle! Ville piti rahasta ja Valle piti mahasta, varsinkin kun se oli täysi. Lyrics: Kirsi Kunnas Music: Eero Koivistoinen Pictures: Papunet http://papunet.net/kuvatyokalu/fi piippu mökki ovi ikkuna hattu raha maha Increasing fluency in L2 writing with singing 291 APPENDIX D The numbers of actual words on the pretest and posttest for individual participants and their gains/losses in numbers of words and percentages from the pretest to the posttest Participant code Number of words Gain/loss from pretest to posttest Pretest Posttest Number of words Percentage IS2 91 175 84 92.31 % IS3 80 87 7 8.75 % IS6 78 101 23 29.49 % IS10 100 127 27 27.00 % IIS1 77 194 117 151.95 % IIS2 89 111 22 24.72 % IIS3 159 128 -31 -19.50 % IIS4 52 106 54 103.85 % IIS7 48 104 56 116.67 % IIS9 69 88 19 27.54 % IIS10 109 138 29 26.61 % IIS11 116 105 -11 -9.48 % IL1 103 104 1 0.97 % IL2 106 121 15 14.15 % IL3 115 85 -30 -26.09 % IL4 52 117 65 125.00 % IL6 94 146 52 55.32 % IL7 87 130 43 49.43 % IL8 79 96 17 21.52 % IL9 84 88 4 4.76 % IL10 89 154 65 73.03 % IIL1 89 155 66 74.16 % IIL2 69 121 52 75.36 % IIL3 115 94 -21 -18.26 % IIL4 150 144 -6 -4.00 % IIL5 74 129 55 74.32 % IIL6 133 92 -41 -30.83 % IIL7 85 115 30 35.29 % IIL8 74 88 14 18.92 % IIL10 90 122 32 35.56 % IIL11 159 192 33 20.75 % IIL12 87 110 23 26.44 % IR2 118 191 73 61.86 % IR4 118 145 27 22.88 % IR7 174 300 126 72.41 % IR8 67 124 57 85.07 % IR9 157 182 25 15.92 % IR10 109 126 17 15.60 % IR11 107 137 30 28.04 % IR12 88 106 18 20.45 % IIR1 105 106 1 0.95 % IIR2 150 153 3 2.00 % IIR3 85 110 25 29.41 % IIR4 137 136 -1 -0.73 % Jenni Alisaari, Leena Maria Heikkola 292 IIR5 113 132 19 16.81 % IIR7 72 103 31 43.06 % IIR8 140 193 53 37.86 % IIR11 93 148 55 59.14 % IIR12 78 103 25 32.05 % Note. I = Course I; II = Course IIA; S = singing teaching method; L = listening teaching method; R = reciting teaching method; the final number = individual participants within the six groups.