1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language Teaching for Young Learners
  4. Volume 5, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-2053
  • E-ISSN: 2589-207x
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

Pre-task planning has been shown to improve fluency and complexity in adult learners’ speech in monologic tasks. Previous work considered pre-task planning in interactive tasks with young children in an ESL setting and reported that, in general, it had an impact on the amount of talk. However, no study so far has considered the impact of planning on the production of language-related episodes (LREs) by young children. This study examined the relationship between planning time and the accurate production of three target form-focused LREs (FFLREs) by thirty-three dyads of 11–12-year-old EFL learners who took part in a longitudinal experiment in which they narrated picture-prompted stories four times under one of three conditions: unguided planning (12 dyads), guided planning (12 dyads), or no-planning (9 dyads). Results showed that no significant improvement in target feature production was observed across weeks or conditions. Regarding accuracy, a notable difference emerged between the pre-test and delayed post-test in the unguided planning condition. Regarding between-group comparisons, although the guided planning group initially demonstrated higher accuracy than their counterparts, this distinction was not maintained. Thus, planning had limited benefits when considering FFLREs. Methodological and pedagogical implications will be discussed.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.00038.may
2023-10-19
2024-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.00038.may
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ltyl.00038.may.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.00038.may&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2017) Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 480–495. 10.1177/1362168816654169
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816654169 [Google Scholar]
  2. Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2013) Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. InK. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp.25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.34.05ch2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.05ch2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Basturkmen, H., & Fu, M.
    (2021) Corrective feedback and the development of second language grammar. InH. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning (pp.367–386). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108589789.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.018 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H.
    (2019) TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 603–632. 10.1177/1362168817744389
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817744389 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bygate, M.
    (Ed.) (2018) Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cambridge Young Learners English Assessment
    Cambridge Young Learners English Assessment (2018) Cambridge English A2 Flyers. Volume11. Cambridge English language assessment. RetrievedMarch 28, 2020, fromhttps://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/young-learners-sample-papers-2018-vol1.pdf
  7. Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2021) Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness, 20(1), 1–16. 10.1080/09658416.2020.1751178
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1751178 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2023) Do task repetition and pretask focus on form instruction impact collaborative writing performance? Evidence from young learners. InM. Li and M. Zhang (Eds.), L2 collaborative writing in diverse learning contexts. (pp.78–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.59.04cal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.59.04cal [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins, L., & Muñoz, C.
    (2016) The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 1001, 133–147. 10.1111/modl.12305
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12305 [Google Scholar]
  10. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2018) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. RetrievedMarch 28, 2020fromhttps://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, R.
    (Ed.) (2005) Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2019) Explicit versus implicit oral corrective feedback. InH. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook on corrective feedback (pp.341–364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F.
    (2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. 10.1017/S0272263104261034
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034 [Google Scholar]
  14. Enever, J.
    (2018) Politics and policy in global primary English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. García Mayo, M. P.
    (2021) Task interaction in task-supported EFL/CLIL contexts. InM. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp.397–415). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108868327.023
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868327.023 [Google Scholar]
  16. García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Aguirre, A.
    (2016) Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 451–466. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799 [Google Scholar]
  17. García Mayo, M. P., & Villarreal, I.
    (2011) The development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque-Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research, 27(1), 129–149. 10.1177/0267658310386523
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386523 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A.
    (2007) Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. InB. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.175–200). London: LEA.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Genessee, F.
    (Ed.) (1994) Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole communitiy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Guara-Tavarés, M.
    (2016) Learners’ processes during pre-task planning and working memory capacity. Ilha do Desterro, 691, 79–94. 10.5007/2175‑8026.2016v69n1p79
     https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2016v69n1p79 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hidalgo, M. A., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2021) The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research, 25(4), 565–586. 10.1177/1362168819865559
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819865559 [Google Scholar]
  22. Imaz Aguirre, A., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2013) Gender agreement in L3 English by Basque/Spanish bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), 415–447. 10.1075/lab.3.4.02ima
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.4.02ima [Google Scholar]
  23. (2018) Proficiency and transfer effects in the acquisition of gender agreement by L2 and L3 English learners. InJ. Cho, M. Iverson, T. Juddy, T. Leal & E. Shimanskaya (Eds.), Meaning and structure in second language acquisition. In honor of Roumyana Slabakova (pp.203–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.55.08ima
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.55.08ima [Google Scholar]
  24. Kang, E. Y., Sok, S., & Han, Z.
    (2019) Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: a meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 428–453. 10.1177/1362168818776671
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818776671 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kasprowicz, R., & Marsden, E.
    (2018) Towards ecological validity in research into input-based practice: Form spotting can be as beneficial as form-meaning practice. Applied Linguistics, 39(6), 886–911. 10.1093/applin/amw051
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw051 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kellerman, E.
    (1985) “If at first you do succeed…” InS. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition, (pp.345–353). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Khoram, A.
    (2019) The impact of task type and pre-task planning condition on the accuracy of intermediate EFL learners’ oral performance. Cogent Education6(1). 10.1080/2331186X.2019.1675466
     https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1675466 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, Y.
    (2013) Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8–35. 10.1002/tesq.52
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.52 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim, Y., Kang, S., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, B.
    (2020) The role of task repetition in a Korean as a foreign language classroom: Writing quality, attention to form, and learning of Korean grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 53(4), 827–849. 10.1111/flan.12501
     https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12501 [Google Scholar]
  30. Leeser, M. J.
    (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. 10.1191/1362168804lr134oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr134oa [Google Scholar]
  31. Levelt, W.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation: MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, L., Chen, J., & Sun, L.
    (2015) The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 38–66. 10.1002/tesq.159
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.159 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lightbown, P. M.
    (1985) Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching.” Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 173–189. 10.1093/applin/6.2.173
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lyster, R.
    (2007) Learning and teaching languages through content. A counterbalance Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.18 [Google Scholar]
  35. Markee, N., & Kunitz, S.
    (2013) Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63(4), 629–664. 10.1111/lang.12019
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12019 [Google Scholar]
  36. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk: Transcription format and programs. (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. McLaughlin, B.
    (1990) “Conscious” versus “Unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 617–634. 10.2307/3587111
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587111 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L.
    (2008) Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 121, 11–37. 10.1177/1362168807084492
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807084492 [Google Scholar]
  39. Newton, J., & Nguyen, B. T. T.
    (2019) Task repetition and the public performance of speaking tasks in EFL classes at a Vietnamese high school. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 34–56. 10.1075/ltyl.00004.new
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00004.new [Google Scholar]
  40. Nassaji, H.
    (2017) Grammar acquisition. InS. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The handbook of instructed second language acquisition, (pp.205–223). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315676968‑12
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-12 [Google Scholar]
  41. Oliver, R., Nguyen, B., & Sato, M.
    (2017) Child instructed SLA. InS. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The handbook of instructed second language acquisition, (pp.468–487). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315676968‑26
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-26 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ortega, L.
    (1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 109–148. 10.1017/S0272263199001047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001047 [Google Scholar]
  43. Park, S.
    (2010) The influence of pretask instructions and pretask planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 9–26. 10.1177/1362168809346491
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809346491 [Google Scholar]
  44. Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A.
    (2006) The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34(4), 547–565. 10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pica, T.
    (2002) Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners?The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 1–19. 10.1111/1540‑4781.00133
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00133 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pinter, A.
    (2011) Children learning second languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230302297
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230302297 [Google Scholar]
  47. Qin, J.
    (2019) Effects of repeated practice in pre-task planning on the acquisition of English personal pronouns by Chinese EFL learners. System, 811, 100–109. 10.1016/j.system.2019.01.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.010 [Google Scholar]
  48. Robinson, P.
    (2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27 [Google Scholar]
  49. Romanova, N.
    (2010) Planning, recasts, and learning of L2 morphology. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 843–875. 10.3138/cmlr.66.6.843
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.843 [Google Scholar]
  50. Roos, J.
    (2019) Exploiting the potential of tasks for targeted language learning in the EFL classroom. InA. Lenzing, H. Nicholas & J. Roos (Eds.), Widening contexts for processability theory. Theories and issues, (pp.285–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/palart.7.12roo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.12roo [Google Scholar]
  51. Sato, M., & Dussuel-Lam, C.
    (2021) Metacognitive instruction with young learners: A case of willingness to communicate, L2 use, and metacognition of oral communication. Language Teaching Research, 251, 899–921. 10.1177/13621688211004639
     https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211004639 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sato, M., & Oyanedel, J. C.
    (2019) ‘I think that is a better way to teach but ..’ EFL teachers’ conflicting beliefs about grammar teaching. System, 841, 110–122. 10.1016/j.system.2019.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  53. Savignon, S. J.
    (1991) Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quartely, 25(2), 261–278. 10.2307/3587463
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587463 [Google Scholar]
  54. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (2014) The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. InP. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance, (pp.1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.01ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.01ske [Google Scholar]
  56. (2015) Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 367–384. 10.1093/applin/amu072
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu072 [Google Scholar]
  57. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y.
    (2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00562.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Stansfield, Ch. W., Reed, D. J., & Velasco, A. M.
    (2005) The Modern language aptitude test- elementary: Spanish version (MLAT-ES). Rockville, MD: Language Learning and Testing Foundation.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01209.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x [Google Scholar]
  60. VanPatten, B.
    (1990) Attention to form and content in the input. An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287–312. 10.1017/S0272263100009177
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.00038.may
Loading
Does repeated pre-task planning have an impact on form-focused LREs?
Language Teaching for Young Learners 5, 149 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00038.may
/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.00038.may
/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.00038.may
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): EFL children; focus on form; longitudinal study; LREs; pre-task planning

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error