Transcript The Impact of Two Modes of Input and Task Repetition on Story Retellings Sachiyo Nishikawa Lancaster University, UK PhD student [email protected].

The Impact of Two Modes of Input
and Task Repetition
on Story Retellings
Sachiyo Nishikawa
Lancaster University, UK
PhD student
[email protected]
1
The purpose of this study
To investigate the impact of oral vs. textual input
and task repetition on L2 speech production.
•
The role of oral vs. textual input: a lack of research …
–
L2 listening and reading comprehension (Lund, 1991)
• Data: L1 Written output
• Findings: Readers -> details, Listeners -> main ideas
•
Fundamental differences between oral and textual input
–
Processing of input (single word processing model, Martin & Wo, 2005: 384)
Heard word
Written word
Phonological
input
<Phoneme>
Orthographic
input
<grapheme>
Phonological
output
<Phoneme>
Semantic
system
OrthographyPhonology
Conversion
Speech
2
Task repetition
• Types of repetition
1. Simultaneous repetition
e.g. Shadowing (Kurz, 1992; Murphey, 2001)
2. Overlapping repetition
e.g. A-> A+B -> A+B+C-> A+B+C+D….
3. Interactive repetition
e.g. Poster carousel (Lynch & Maclean, 1994)
4. Delayed repetition
e.g. Week 10 (Bygate, 2001) , Week 1 (Gass et al., 1999)
• The impact of task repetition
“Greater capacity to bring together and structure
relevant information, greater speed of access,
greater ability to attend to their performance” (Bygate, 2007)
3
Rationale summarised
Oral input provides a trigger for such phonological information,
but textual input DOES NOT provide this trigger.
Through task repetition, a capacity for processing of input could increase.
Hypotheses:
Oral input -> greater fluency in speech production than textual input.
Task repetition -> greater fluency, complexity, accuracy on second performance.
Task repetition -> differently affect the impact of oral and textual input (i.e. interaction).
Research Questions
1. What impact does oral input have on speech production compared to
textual input?
2. Does task repetition have an overall effect on speech production?
4
Methodology
• Participants
– 2nd year Japanese sociology undergraduates (N=24)
• 18 males, 6 females
• Study design
– Participants grouped based on a 3000 word vocabulary test
(Nation, 2001), 2 groups with the comparable vocab. level
Oral input
Textual input
– Time 1
Group 1
Group 2
(N=12)
(N=12)
Reordering pictures
Story retelling (×4 sub tasks )
– Time 2
Task repetition (one week later)
5
Tasks & Materials
• Story retelling with visual aids (sequenced pictures)
1. Dog’s story
2. Businessman’s story
Part 1
Part 2
Part 1
Part 2
DP1
DP2
BP1
BP2
4 sub tasks
6
Data & Analysis procedures
• Story retelling recorded, transcribed (Soundscriber/Transcriber)
• Segmented into AS-units (Foster et. al, 2000)
• Utterances and pauses measured – Praat (www.praat.org)
– cut-off = 0.25 sec. (Goldman- Eisler, 1968; Towell, 1987)
• 8 measures of fluency, complexity and accuracy (described in
detail below)
– 4 selected for statistical analysis
• Computed the overall scores (i.e. mean scores of four sub tasks)
• Inter-rater reliability tests for complexity and accuracy measures
– Agreement: 94% (complexity), 84% (accuracy)
7
Measures
Dimension
Fluency Speech
output
Pause
Measure
1. Speech Rate (SR)
[syll./min.]
2. Articulation Rate (AR)
[syll./min.]
3. Phonation Time Ratio (PTR)
[%]
4. Mean Length of Run (MLR)
[syll.]
5. Mean Length of Pause (MLP)
[sec.]
6. Number of Silent Pauses per Minute (NSPM)
Complexity
7. Number of Clauses per AS-unit (NCAS)
Accuracy
8. Percentage of Target-Like Finite Verbs (PTLFV)
[%]
8
Statistical analysis
Dimension
Fluency
Measure
(1)
1. Speech Rate (SR)
Speech
Output 2. Articulation Rate (AR)
Selecting
4 measures
Selected
one sensitive
measure by
RMs MANOVA
3. Phonation Time Ratio (PTR)
4. Mean Length of Run (MLR)
(2)
Pause
(3) Complexity
(4) Accuracy
Selected
one sensitive
measure by
6. Number of Silent Pauses per Minute (NSPM)
RMs MANOVA
Used this
7. Number of Clauses per AS-unit (NCAS)
measure
8. Percentage of Target-Like Finite Verbs (PTLFV) Used this
measure
5. Mean Length of Pause (MLP)
9
RMs MANOVA results to select
a speech output measure
Dimension Measure
Fluency
(Speech
output)
Effect
Input
Time
Input×Time
SR
ns
ns
AR
PTR
F=4.484
p=.046*
ns
MLR
ns
F=45.312
p=.000*
F=30.928
p=.000*
F=22.426
p=.000*
F=22.247
p=.000*
ns
ns
F=5.657
p=.026*
*p < .05.
10
RMs MANOVA results to select
a pause measure
Dimension Measure
Fluency
(Pause)
MLP
Effect
Input
Time
Input×Time
ns
F=11.694
p=.002*
ns
Partial Eta
Squared=.347
NSPM
ns
F=15.526
p=.001*
ns
Partial Eta
Squared=.414
*p < .05.
11
Selected four measures
Dimension
Fluency Speech
output
Pause
Measure
1. Articulation Rate (AR)
[syll./min.]
2. Number of Silent Pauses per Minute (NSPM)
Complexity
3. Number of Clauses per AS-unit (NCAS)
Accuracy
4. Percentage of Target-Like Finite Verbs (PTLFV)
[%]
12
Results
(Descriptive Statistics of four selected measures)
Dimension
Measure
Input
Time 1
Time 2
(O=12, T=12)
Fluency
Speech
output
Pause
Complexity
Accuracy
AR
NSPM
NCAS
PTLFV
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
oral
130.64
22.82
143.24
23.78
textual
112.52
19.26
125.18
20.45
oral
19.31
5.41
22.57
4.99
textual
20.02
5.44
22.36
6.46
oral
1.21
0.07
1.19
0.09
textual
1.22
0.13
1.23
0.13
oral
64.37
13.67
68.15
14.22
textual
66.54
19.63
74.83
16.74
13
RMs MANOVA Results
Dimension
Measure
Effect
Input
Time
Input × Time
Complexity
NCAS
ns
F=30.928
p=.000*
T1<T2
F=15.526
p=.001*
T1<T2
ns
ns
NSPM
F=4.484
p=.046*
Textual<Oral
ns
Accuracy
PTLFV
ns
F=6.762
p=.016*
T1<T2
ns
Fluency Speech
output
Pause
AR
ns
ns
*p < .05.
14
RMs MANOVA Results
(Possible Trade-off)
Dimension
Measure
Effect
Input
Time
Input × Time
Complexity
NCAS
ns
F=30.928
p=.000*
T1<T2
F=15.526
p=.001*
T1<T2
ns
ns
NSPM
F=4.484
p=.046*
Textual<Oral
ns
Accuracy
PTLFV
ns
F=6.762
p=.016*
T1<T2
ns
Fluency Speech
output
Pause
AR
ns
ns
*p < .05.
15
Summary of results
Research questions
RQ1. What impact
does oral input have
on speech production
compared to textual
input?
RQ2. Does task
repetition have an
overall effect on
speech production?
Results
Effect on AR
(Greater increase in fluency)
Yes.
(+) Fluency (speech output) & Accuracy
Complex
trade-off?
(-) Fluency (pause) increased.
Familiar information ---> More F & A, not C
(Foster & Skehan ,1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997)
16
Discussion & Conclusion
Main findings
Model input (oral / textual)
Task repetition
+ familiar context
+ familiar task
+ focus on linguistic needs
Gains in
fluency & accuracy
Oral input may promote fluency on the AR level.
17
Limitations and further research
• Limitations
– Small sample size (N=12 for each group)
– English oral proficiency
• Further research
– Different oral proficiency level:
• intermediate and advanced level of speakers
– + input (oral/textual) & task repetition vs.
- input (visual) & task repetition
• Further analysis
– Qualitative analysis: interviews
To be continued…….
18
Thank you!
Sachiyo Nishikawa
[email protected]
19
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2008). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.35) [Computer program].
Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.praat.org/
Bygate, M. (2001) Effect of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain,
M. (eds.) Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing: 23-48. Harlow, England; New
York: Longman.
Bygate, M. (2007, January) Linking empirical research to the development of language pedagogy: the case of task repetition.
Paper presented at the Language Learning Pedagogy Research Group, Lancaster University, UK.
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000) Measuring spoken language : A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21
(3), 354-375.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M.J. & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output.
Language Learning, 49 (4), 549-581.
Goldman- Eisler, F. (1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. New York: Academic Press.
Kurz, I. (1992) ‘Shadowing’ exercises in interpreter training. In Dollerup, C. & Loddegaar, A. (eds.) Teaching Translation and
Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience: 245-250. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lund, R.J. (1991) A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75 (2),
196-204.
Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (1994) Poster carousel. In Bailey, K. and Savage, L. (eds.) New Ways of Teaching Speaking: 108-109.
TESOL.
Martin, R.C. & Wu, D.H. (2005) The cognitive neuropsychology of language. In Lamberts, K. & Goldstone, R.L. (eds.)
Handbook of Cognition: 382-404. London: SAGE.
Murphey, T. (2001) Exploring conversational shadowing. Language Teaching Research, 5 (2), 18-155.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance.
Language Teaching Research, 1 (3), 185-212
Tavakoli, P & Skehan, P. (2005) Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis, R. (ed.) Planning and Task
Performance in Second Language: 239-273. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Towell, R. (1987) Approaches to the analysis of the oral language development of the advanced learner. In Coleman, J.A. &
Towell, R. (eds.) The Advanced Language Learner: 157-181. London: C.I.L.T.
20