Transcript Planning, recasts and learning of L2 morphology Natalia Romanova University of Maryland [email protected] Focus Task Complexity (+/-planning) + Focus on Form (Recast) ? ? ? L2 learning.

Planning, recasts and
learning of L2
morphology
Natalia Romanova
University of Maryland
[email protected]
Focus
Task Complexity (+/-planning)
+
Focus on Form (Recast)
?
?
?
L2 learning
Motivation
 much research of the effects of recasts on
interlanguage development (Long, 2007)
 much research of task complexity variables on
learner’s production (Ellis, 2003)
 much research on the effect of planning time on
learners’ production (Ellis, 1987; 2003; Mehnert,
1998; Ortega, 1999; Wendel, 1997; Yuan and Ellis,
2003) but
– pre-task planning was typically conflated with online
planning
 little research of effectiveness of recasts in relation
to task complexity (Revesz and Han, 2006;
Revesz, 2006; 2009)
Goals of the study
 explores the relationship between task complexity
and L2 learning to explore the effects of type of
planning on L2 morphological development
 isolates planning time available before and during
task performance as an independent variable
 seeks to determine whether the availability of
planning time and type of planning may
– enhance the salience of corrective feedback,
– promote the noticing of recasts and
– facilitate acquisition of complex morphosyntactic
forms.
Recasts: impact
 gaps between their interlanguage
and target language forms
 facilitation of form-function
mapping
destabilization and consequent
restructuring of the IL grammar
Recasts: factors of effectiveness
Research to date suggests that recasts can facilitate L2
development, but their efficacy is a function of several internal
and external variables.
 learners’ internal factors
 L1
 level of L2 proficiency
 age
 working memory capacity
 developmental readiness
 external factors
 type of linguistic features
 context
 task variables
Planning and language production
 pre-task planning
o directed at the
conceptualization stage
 online planning
o engages both
conceptualizing and
careful formulation
o monitoring
 rapid planning
o limited processing time
o LTM is accessed mainly
for lexical material
Task characteristics: attention
Models of attention
Single resource,
limited capacity model
(Skehan, 1998; Skehan and Foster, 2001)
Multiple resources model
(Cognition Hypothesis)
(Robinson, 2001; 2003; 2005; 2007)
Resource-directing,
language development
dimensions
Resource-depleting,
language deployment
dimensions
Predictions regarding L2 accuracy
+ planning time
Single resource model:
Multiple resources model:
frees attentional resources
that can be devoted to
language form
frees attention and directs it to
particular aspects of the
language
Promotes accuracy
- planning time
Single resource model:
Multiple resources model:
depletes attentional resources
that can be devoted to L2 form
depletes attention and disperses
it over non-specific areas of L2
Degrades accuracy
Predictions regarding recasts
Single resource model

less complex tasks encourage focus on form, and may lead to
noticing, uptake and retention of input made salient by recasts
Cognition Hypothesis

more complex tasks along resource-dispersing dimensions will
facilitate automatization of, and real-time access to, an already
established and developing IL system

more complex tasks along resource-directing dimensions will
direct learners’ attention to language analysis which will
eventually lead to the development of new L2 form-function
mappings

more complex tasks may prompt learners to look for more and
more help in the input, attending to facilitative forms made
salient by recasts

more complex tasks along resource-directing, and in general,
too, along resource dispersing dimensions promote noticing,
uptake and retention of input made salient by recasts.
Studies exploring the effect of task
complexity on L2 learning
Revesz (2007; 2009):

examined how the task variable +/− contextual
support combined with recasting affects L2
morphosyntactic development.
Learners who received recasts but were not receiving contextual
support outperformed learners who received both recasts and
contextual support.
Nuevo (2006):


did not detect an effect for task complexity;
focused on a resource-directing dimension
Research Questions
1.
Does the availability of planning time before or during the
task have a differential effect on the acquisition of
morphological forms made salient in the input by recasts?
A. Do learners who are exposed to focused recasts on their L2 output in the pre-task
planning (PP) condition show greater short-term L2 development than learners who
are exposed to recasts in the no planning (NP) condition?
B. Do learners who are exposed to focused recasts on their L2 output during online
task planning (OP condition) show greater short-term L2 development than learners
who do not have an opportunity for online planning (NP condition)?
2.
Does type of planning (when planning takes place) have a
differential effect on the acquisition of morphological forms
made salient in the input by recasts?
Do learners who are exposed to focused recasts on their L2 output during
online planning (OP) condition and learners who engage in pre-task
planning (PP) condition show similar short-term L2 development?
Hypotheses
1.
A. The PP group will show greater improvement
than the NP group.
B. The OP group will show greater improvement
than the NP group.
2. The OP group will show greater improvement than
the PP group.
Design
Pre-test-posttest-delayed posttest design
 2 (time: pre-test, post-test) x 3 (planning type:
pre-task, online, no planning) factorial repeated
measures ANOVA
– time as a within-subjects factor and type of
planning as a between-subject factor
– DV: learners’ accuracy of the target forms
 Treatment: recasts of deviant verb forms during
online story-telling task.
 DV: accuracy in the use the target form.
Participants

3 groups
– PP group (N=13)
– OP group (N=13)
– NP group (N=13)

Homogeneous language background
o
o
o
o
o
Native speakers of English
Mean age: 21.2
F=23, M=16
Two-five semesters of Russian
Similar instructional background
o
(the same two-volume, introductory Russian-language textbook “Golosa”)
o No study abroad experience
o No or minimal exposure to Russian outside the classroom
o Developmentally ready
 Random assignment to conditions to control for possible
covariates
Target form
 Russian: 3d person singular form of the present
tense verbs of the unproductive –a- class
o low perceptual salience
o low frequency
o morphologically complex (it has an automatic truncation at the
juncture of the stem and the ending, mutation of the root-final
consonant and a stress shift)
o has no communicative value
o Involves learning a probabilistic rule, or concrete cooccurrence patterns which favors implicit learning as opposed
to learning abstract categorical rules that seem to be best
learned explicitly (DeKeyser, 1998)
o is difficult to acquire solely from exposure to input (Long and
Robinson, 1998):
o typical errors are the use of a different conjugation pattern in
place of –a- pattern, errors in consonant mutation, missing
mutation or incorrect mutation (Gor and Chernigovskaya, 2003; 2004; Gor,
2007; Romanova, 2004; 2008).
Target form
Infinitive
piSa+ t
3rd person, singular, Present
piS-a + et
= piSHet
= pisAu
Data collection
 Orally
 About 60 minutes per participant
– Language background questionnaire
– Language proficiency test
– Pre-test: answer the questions task and picture
description task
– Treatment session: picture description task
– Exit questionnaire (what they planned, focused
on and noticed)
– Post-test given immediately after the treatment,
– Delayed post-test two weeks later (N=22).
Stimuli
 Real verbs: 12
 Nonce verbs: 24 (12 X2) created by manipulating one or two
initial consonants.
 Each set has verbs representing 3 mutation types:
– 4 verbs with root final –t-,
– 4 verbs with root final –к-, both mutating to –ch-, and
– 4 verbs with root final bilabial –b-, -p-,-m- that add –l-.
Examples: xnykat’ – (on) xnych+et,
dremat’ – (on) drem+l+et.
 Paired real and nonce verbs were not used in the same task,
 The same real verbs were not used in the same test, and
 The same nonce verbs were not used in the pre- and posttests.
Pre-/post-tests
A story narrative task
 two sets of 12 pictures
 6 real verbs (different for each set) and 6
distracters provided with the pictures.
An answer-the-questions task
 two lists of 36 questions counterbalanced
across the tests
 12 questions require the use of the target
verbs (6 real verbs and 6 nonce verbs), and
24 distracters require the use of nouns in
oblique cases, adjectives and adverbs.
The order of the tasks is counterbalanced across
the participants.
Answer the questions task
Please give short one-word responses (if appropriate) to the
following questions.
Examples:
Q: Наташа любит чипАть. Что она сейчас делает?
A: ЧипАет.
Q: Андрей хочет смотреть телевизор. Что он сейчас
делает?
A: Смотрит телевизор.
Q: В магазин привезли компьютеры. Где сейчас
компьютеры?
A: В магазине.
Picture description task
1. coзревАть – to ripen
4. бормотAть (to mumble)
7. улыбAться - to smile
9. залезАть - to climb
2. прилетАть (to descend on)
5. трепAть нЕрвы (to get on someone’s nerves)
8. покAзывать - to point
10. щипAть - to pluck
11. плAкать - to cry
3. скакAть (to jump up and down)
6. хлопотAть над чУчелом (to make a scarecrow)
Treatment task
 24 pictures, 24 words/expressions, 12 target real
verbs
 Planning conditions
 NP condition:
no pre-task planning
20 sec. to describe each picture
 PP condition:
5-10 minutes of pre-task planning
20 sec. to describe each picture
 OP condition:
no pre-task planning
no time pressure to describe each picture
Method – treatment task
Data coding and analysis
 1 point for the correct use of the verb form
(-a- class conjugational pattern + correct
mutation) and
 0 points for an incorrect use of the –aclass pattern (including incorrect
mutation).
 Analysis of interlanguage development:
all instances of attempted use of the –aclass pattern were counted.
Treatment
12.0
10.0
2
Number of recasts
8.0
Modified
6.0
Correct
4.0
Attempted
2.0
0.0
NP
PP
OP
number of correct forms during treatment *accuracy score at the
immediate posttest (r=.684, p=0.00),
number of attempted forms during treatment * number of attempted
forms at the posttest (r=.422, p=0.01).
12
10
Total Correct
2
8
Planning Condition
NP
PP
OP
6
4
2
0
pre test
post test
Results
 accuracy has improved overall from 0.51 to 4.1
 there is a difference between how the treatment
affected the groups:
– a dramatic increase in accuracy on the posttest for the
OP and PP groups but not for the NP group.
– no difference between the groups on the pretest
– a difference between the performance of the NP group
and the two planning groups on the posttest.
Results
 The main effect for time in the tests of within-subjects effects:
– F(1, 36)=37.028; p=.000, Eta-squared= .507, observed
power=1;
 The effect for time * condition interaction:
– F(1, 36)=5.114; p=.011, Eta-squared=.211, observed power= .8
 The main effect for planning in the tests of between-subjects
effects:
– F(1, 36)=3.869, p=.03, Eta-squared=.177, observed power=.663.
 Pairwise comparisons:
• OP and NP are significantly different (p=.042)
• PP and OP and PP and NP difference is not significant
• performance on the immediate posttest is significantly different from
the pretest p<.005)
Results
12
10
Total Correct
2
8
Planning Condition
NP
PP
OP
6
4
2
0
pre test
post test
delayed post test
Results
 The main effect for time in the tests of within-subjects effects:
– F(1, 18)=15.07; p=.001, Eta-squared= .456, observed
power=.956 (pretest-posttest-delayed posttest scores);
 The effect for time * condition interaction:
– F(1, 18)=2.846; p=.083,
 The main effect for planning in the tests of between-subjects
effects:
– F(1, 18)=3.2849, p=.060
 Pairwise comparisons:
• OP and NP are significantly different (p=.023)
• PP and OP or PP and NP are not significantly different
• performance on both posttests is significantly different from pretest
(p=.000 for pretest-immediate posttest comparison) and p=.003 for
pretest-delayed posttest comparison)
• performance on posttest and delayed post test was not significantly
different.
Interlanguage development –
attempted target forms
2
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Pretest
Posttest
NP
PP
OP
Effects of:
•time: F(1,36)=36.641, p=.000, Eta squared= .504, power=1
•time*condition: F(1, 36)=4.540, p=.017, Eta squared=.201,
power=.737
Exit questionnaire
Focus
60.0
2
50.0
40.0
NP
30.0
PP
20.0
OP
10.0
0.0
content
form
both
other
focus* treatment accuracy: Spearman r= .327 (sig)
focus* posttest accuracy: Spearman r=.400 (sig)
Exit questionnaire
Noticing
2
100.0
80.0
NP
60.0
PP
40.0
OP
20.0
0.0
nothing
form
other
noticing* modified output: Spearman r =. 365, p=0.02.
Exit questionnaire
Learning
2
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
NP
PP
OP
nothing
mutations
other
learning * number of correct forms produced during the treatment
(Spearman r=.340, p=0.03) and at the posttest (r=.360, p=0.02).
Conclusions
 The availability of planning – regardless of
whether it was before or during the task –
decreases cognitive load and task complexity,
releases attentional resources and predispose
learners to monitor the accuracy of production
and notice recasts in the input, which leads to
the restructuring of IL grammar and facilitates
the learning of target forms.
 The unavailability of planning time depletes the
attentional resources, dispersing the attention
available, and results in poor learning of
morphological forms targeted by recasts.
Conclusions
 These results are in line with the single resource
model and contrary to predictions of the Cognition
Hypothesis.
 Online planning that engages both
conceptualizing and careful formulation and
monitoring may better assist learners in noticing
gaps in their L2 knowledge than the availability of
pretask planning time directed primarily at
conceptualizing.
Limitations and next steps
No control group
No recast group
Focus during task performance matters
Results may have been modulated by
group responses to feedback
working memory limitations
language proficiency
REFERENCES
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second
language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom
language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 42-63.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Gor, K. and Chernigovskaya, T. (2003). Generation of complex verbal morphology in first and second
language acquisition: Evidence from Russian. Nordlyd.
Gor, K. and Chernigovskaya, T. (2004). Formal Instruction and the Mental Lexicon: The Acquisition of
Verbal Morphology. In: Current Issues in Instructed Second Language Learning, Mouton De
Gruyter, Berlin.
Gor, K. (2007). Experimental study of first and second language morphological processing. In Methods in
Cognitive Linguistics, Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S. and M. J. Spivey
(eds.), 367–398.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D.
Coste, C. Kramsch and R.Ginsberg (Eds.). Foreign Language Research in a CrossCultural Perspective (pp.39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & B.
K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York:
Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2007). Recasts: the story thus far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
Révész, A., & Han, Z. (2006 ). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts Language
Awareness, 3, 160 –179.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rulesearch and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (1), 27-68.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: a triadic framework
for investigating task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 287-318). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-678). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential
framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 43, 1-32.
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. del Pilar GarcíaMayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, pp. 7 – 27. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters .
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language
learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 161 – 176.
Romanova, N. (2004). Verbal morphology processing by Russian heritage speakers: native or
non-native. OSU Working Papers in Slavic Studies. Ohio State University, 4.
Romanova, N. (2008). Mechanisms of Verbal Morphology Processing in Heritage Speakers of
Russian. Heritage Language Journal, vol. 6, 1. (http://www.heritagelanguages.org/)
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics,
17, 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign
language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185-211.
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (2000). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on taskbased performance, Language Learning.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Townsend C.E. (1975). Russian word formation. Slavica Publishers.
Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency,
complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24: 1-27.