Transcript TBLT 2, Hawai’i The influence of strategic task based planning on the fluency, accuracy and complexity of speech in two L2s. Siska Van Daele, Alex.

TBLT 2, Hawai’i
The influence of strategic task
based planning on the fluency,
accuracy and complexity of
speech in two L2s.
Siska Van Daele, Alex Housen & Michel Pierrard
ACQUILANG
(Centre for Studies on Second
Language Learning & Teaching)
0
BACKGROUND
 Exploratory longitudinal study of the Complexity,
Accuracy and Fluency (CAF) of the L2 speech
produced by Dutch-speaking adolescents learning
French and English as FLs (and by native speakers of
French and English).
.
AIMS
 Describe the development of productive oral proficiency in
two L2s in terms of Complexity (C), Accuracy (A) and
Fluency (F) and the factors that influence the manifestation
of CAF.
 Formulate construct definitions and operational definitions
of Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency as basic dimensions
of L2 proficiency.
 Information processing theories and psycholinguistic
models of speech production (e.g. Anderson 1993; Bialystok
2001; De Bot 1992; Ellis 1994, 2004; Levelt 1989; 1999; MacLaughlin
& Heredia 1996; Robinson 1995, 2003; Skehan 1998).
.
C-A-F in L2 is influenced by:
1. Cognitive & Psycholinguistic factors:


working memory capacity
attention
2. Psychological factors:


Affective factors (eg. attitudes, motivations…)
Personality factors (eg. extraversion, degree of foreign
language anxiety…)
3. Contextual factors:


.
amount and type of contact with L2
task type and planning conditions
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
L2 CONSTRAINTS:
 limited lexicon
 limited processing
capacity
PLANNING:
 types:
 (strategic) pre-task
aids F & C
 within-task
aids C & A
 increases processing
capacity
.
(Levelt, 1989)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
PREVIOUS RESEACH:
 positive results for fluency & complexity (Crookes, 1989; Foster, 1996;
Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan & Foster 1997;
Wendel, 1997 and Yuan & Ellis, 2003).
 no (Crookes, 1989; Wendel, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003)or mixed results
(Foster, 1996; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan &
Foster1997) for accuracy.
DUE TO:
 unintentional within-task planning (Yuan & Ellis, 2003).
 length of preparation time (Mehnert, 1998).
 learner strategies (Ortega, 2005).
 type of planning (guided/non guided), task (narrative, decision
making…) (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Sanguran,
2005).
 proficiency level (Kawauchi, 2005, Ortega, 1995, 1999, 2005).
 language typology
.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
DESCRIPTIVE QUESTIONS PLANNING:
1. a. Does unguided strategic pre-task planning have an effect
on the fluency, accuracy and complexity of intermediate
English-FL learners?
b. Does unguided strategic pre-task planning have an effect
on the fluency, accuracy and complexity of THE SAME
intermediate French-FL learners?
2.
.
Are the effects of unguided strategic pre-task planning
similar or different for both target languages?
METHODOLOGY
PARTICIPANTS:
 L2 learners:
 40 Dutch-speaking adolescent learners (aged 14-16)
of EFL and FFL in secondary education in Flanders.
DESIGN (cross-sectional and cross-linguistic):
20 FFL
20 EFL
20 FFL
20 EFL
.
Strategic pre-task planning (SP)
No planning time (NP)
Foreign Language Teaching and Learning in Flanders:
 L2-French (= other national language):
 Starts at age 8-9 (Year 3)
 Taught for 3-5 hrs a week (till Year 12)
 ± 360 hrs classroom contact at start of study (Year 9)
 L3-English:
 Starts at age 12-13 (Year 7)
 Taught for 2-4 hrs a week (till Year 12)
 ±180 hrs classroom contact at start of study
 similar curricula + same (expected) levels of FL-
achievement for FFL and EFL (in Years 9-11)
.
METHODOLOGY
MATERIALS & DATA:
 Oral retell-task: 3 versions of a 60-frame wordless
picture story: Monsieur O (L. Trondheim):
variations on a similar general plot line, same
protagonist and contextualization but different
secondary characters.
.
METHODOLOGY
MATERIALS & DATA:
 Task conditions: participants told the story with and
without pre-task planning time (5. min - 0 min.) and
under time pressure (max. 5 min).
 Oral speech data: recorded and transcribed and
analyzed in CHAT-format.
 Statistical analysis: three-way random effect
ANOVA’s.
.
METHODOLOGY
C-A-F MEASURES
 COMPLEXITY:
 Lexical Diversity: Guiraud’s Index (e.g. Vermeer, 2000).
 Syntactic Complexity: Subclause ratio (Wolfe-Quintero,
Inagaki & Kim, 1998).
 ACCURACY:
 Lexical Accuracy: lexical errors per clause
 Grammatical Accuracy: morphological + syntactic errors
per clause (Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki & Kim, 1998).
 FLUENCY:
 Speech Rate A & B ((meaningful) syllables per minute)
(e.g. Yuan & Ellis, 2003; Ellis & Yuan 2005).
.
HYPOTHESES
1.
EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be
characterized by higher fluency rates > (pre-task)
conceptualization reduces hesitation/pausing behavior.
2.
EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be syntactically
more complex and lexically more diverse > allocation of
attention to message construction in conceptualizer and
formulator.
3.
EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be
grammatically and lexically more accurate > advanced (and
intermediate ?) learners can attend to semantic and syntactic
encoding AND monitor their output.
.
HYPOTHESES
EXPLORATORY RESEARCH QUESTION:
Are the effects of planning influenced by language typology and is
this effect independent of other variables such as proficiency
level?
.
RESULTS: FLUENCY
140
120
Sig. increase in Eng
(F 1,38=6.91, p=0.012)
English - SRA
English - SRB
French - SRA
French - SRB
Near-sig. increase in Fr
(F1,38 =3.57, p=0.067)
100
Eng > Fr in both conditions &
for both measures
(F 1,115=316.63, p= <0.0001)
80
60
40
20
No planning
.
Pre-task planning
RESULTS: COMPLEXITY
English - IG
English - SCR
French - IG
French - SCR
5.0
4.0
Sig. increase in IG & SCR in
Fr (F1,38=4.77, p=0.035)
Eng > Fr in both conditions &
for both measures
(F1,115=316.63, p= <0.0001)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
No planning
.
Sig. increase in IG & SCR
in Eng (F1,38=4.77, p=0.035)
Pre-task planning
RESULTS: ACCURACY
0.5
Sig. decrease in errors
in Eng (F1,38=8.72, p=0.005)
0.4
No sig. change in
Fr (F1,38=0.00, p=0.983)
0.3
English -LEXACC
English - SYNACC
French - LEXACC
French - SYNACC
Accuracy
0.2
0.1
0.0
No planning
.
Pre-task planning
Eng > Fr in both conditions &
for both measures
(F1,116 =121.27, p=<0.0001)
SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
1. Does unguided strategic pre-task planning have an effect on the
fluency, accuracy and complexity of intermediate English-FL and
the same French-FL learners?
2. Are the effects of unguided strategic pre-task planning similar or
different for both target languages?
ENGLISH-FL
FRENCH-FL
+
+
LEX
+
+
SYN
+
+
LEX
+
0
GRAM
+
0
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY
ACCURACY
.
SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
1. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be
characterized by higher fluency rates > (pre-task)
conceptualization reduces hesitation/pausing behavior.
ENGLISH-FL
FRENCH-FL
+
+
LEX
+
+
SYN
+
+
LEX
+
0
GRAM
+
0
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY
ACCURACY
.
SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
1. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be
characterized by higher fluency rates > (pre-task)
conceptualization reduces hesitation/pausing behavior.
ENGLISH-FL
FRENCH-FL
+
+
LEX
+
+
SYN
+
+
LEX
+
0
GRAM
+
0
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY
ACCURACY
.
SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
2. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be
syntactically more complex and lexically more diverse >
allocation of attention to message construction in
conceptualizer and formulator.
ENGLISH-FL
FRENCH-FL
+
+
LEX
+
+
SYN
+
+
LEX
+
0
GRAM
+
0
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY
ACCURACY
.
SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
2. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be
syntactically more complex and lexically more diverse >
allocation of attention to message construction in
conceptualizer and formulator.
ENGLISH-FL
FRENCH-FL
+
+
LEX
+
+
SYN
+
+
LEX
+
0
GRAM
+
0
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY
ACCURACY
.
SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
3. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be
grammatically and lexically more accurate > advanced (and
intermediate ?) learners can attend to syntactic and
semantic encoding AND monitor their output.
ENGLISH-FL
FRENCH-FL
+
+
LEX
+
+
SYN
+
+
LEX
+
0
GRAM
+
0
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY
ACCURACY
.
SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
3. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be
grammatically and lexically more accurate > advanced (and
intermediate ?) learners can attend to syntactic and
semantic encoding AND monitor their output.
ENGLISH-FL
FRENCH-FL
+
+
LEX
+
+
SYN
+
+
LEX
+
0
GRAM
+
0
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY
ACCURACY
.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Are the effects of planning influenced by language typology and is
this effect independent of other variables such as proficiency
level?
Unexpected discrepancy in proficiency levels: typology (???)
BUT: At higher proficiency levels (EFL): gains in accuracy
.
Limitations & implications for further research
 Measurements of CAF as basic dimensions of L2 proficiency:
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
 more and more fine-grained measures (e.g. repair/breakdown F)
 factor analysis > interplay between dimensions
(Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005)
OTHER METHODS:
 developmental sequences
(Bartning & Schlyter, 2004; Pienemann, 2005)
 qualitative analysis (e.g. pausing behavior, word difficulty)
(Chambers, 1997)
 chunks/ formulaic sequences
(Stengers, 2006)
.
Limitations & implications for further research
 Crosslinguistic analysis (typology):
 proficiency test / pre-test
 consider typological differences in phonology / inflectional morph.
 Effects of strategic planning
 individual variability:
 strategies think aloud protocols (Ortega, 1995, 1999)
 personality/ affective variables
 length of planning and execution (Mehnert, 1998, Ellis & Yuan, 2003)
 task type / complexity (Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005; Robinson et al.,1995)
 type of strategic planning: guided >< non guided (Sanguran, 2005)
.
INFORMATION & FEEDBACK
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
.
REFERENCES
Bartning I. & Schlyter S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en françaisL2. Journal of
French Language Studies14, 281-299.
Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by oral fluency? System 25, 535-544.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 367-383.
Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed), Planning and Task
Performance in a Second Language, (pp. 37-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In J.Willis & D.
Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. London: Heineman.
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and focus of planning on task-based learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 18(3), 299-324.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed), Planning and TaskPerformance in a
Second Language, (pp. 37-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mehnert, U. (1998). Length of Planning Time and L2 Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20,
109-122.
Ortega, L. (1995). The effects of planning in L2 Spanish narratives. Research Note 15. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
21, 109-148.
Ortega, L. (2005). Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed),Planning and Task
Performance in a Second Language, (pp. 37-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
.
REFERENCES
Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects
of Processability Theory, (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sanguran, J. (2005). The effects of focussing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R.Ellis (Ed.),
Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, (pp.111–141). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language
performance. Language Teaching Research 1, 185-211.
Stenger, H., Housen, A., Boers, F. & Eyckmans, J. (forthcoming). The effectiveness of a phrase-learning approach
on fluency, complexity and accuracy in and beyond the EFL classroom.
Robinson, P., Ting, S. & Unwin, J. (1996). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC Journal 26, 6279.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.),
Planning and task performance in a second language, (pp. 239-273). Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Trondheim, L. (2002). Monsieur O. Paris: Delcourt.
Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing 17 (1),
65-83.
Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished PhD thesis. Temple
University, Japan.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Hae-Young, K. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of
Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and
accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 24, 1-27.
.