1887
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2666-1748
  • E-ISSN: 2666-1756
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study sets out to explore the effects of pre-task planning and unpressured on-line planning on L2 learners’ oral performance and their choices of planning strategies in a dialogic task condition. Forty-eight intermediate Chinese EFL learners were invited to perform the task and were then assigned to four groups, each with a different planning condition. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency of their oral production were measured. Results indicated that in the dialogic task condition, unpressured on-line planning raised syntactic complexity. Strikingly, pre-task planning did not improve L2 performance in all dimensions. Additionally, a trade-off effect was found between complexity and accuracy. Retrospective interviews were conducted to explore strategies employed by the participants and their perceptions of task preparedness. Results showed that the participants preferred to use metacognitive strategies and social/affective strategies in the dialogic task. Both advantages and limitations were identified by the participants regarding different planning conditions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/task.20020.gu
2021-12-16
2022-05-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmadian, M. J.
    (2012) The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 129–149. 10.1177/1362168811425433
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811425433 [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C.
    (1983) Learning, remembering, and understanding. InJ. H. Flavell & M. Markman. (Eds.). Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (pp.77–166). John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, S.
    (2006) Teaching listening. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bui, G.
    (2014) Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. InP. Skehan. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.63–94). John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, M. L.
    (2009) Influence of grade level on perceptual learning style preferences and language learning strategies of Taiwanese English as a foreign language learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 304–308. 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Crookes, G.
    (1989) Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383. 10.1017/S0272263100008391
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008391 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dörnyei, Z.
    (2019) Task motivation: What makes an L2 task engaging?InZ. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian. (Eds.). Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honor of Peter Skehan. (pp.53–66). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.13.04dor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.04dor [Google Scholar]
  9. Elder, C. A., & Iwashita, N.
    (2005) Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference?InR. Ellis. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.219–238). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.14eld
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.14eld [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellis, R.
    (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20. 10.1017/S0272263100006483
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006483 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2005) Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. InR. Ellis. (Ed.) Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.03ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.03ell [Google Scholar]
  12. (2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509. 10.1093/applin/amp042
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2018) Reflections on task-based language teaching. Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C.
    (2019) Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108643689
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108643689 [Google Scholar]
  15. Foster, P., & Skehan, P.
    (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. 10.1017/S0272263100015047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  16. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 354–375. 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Levkina, M.
    (2011) Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. InP. Robinson. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.105–138). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.10ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.10ch5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Griffiths, C.
    (2003) Language learning strategy use and proficiency: The relationship between patterns of reported language learning strategy (LLS) use by speakers of other language (SOL) and proficiency with implications for the teaching/learning situation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Auckland.
  19. Guiraud, P.
    (1959) Problèmes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique. Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kawauchi, C.
    (2005) The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. InR. Ellis. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.143–164). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.09kaw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.09kaw [Google Scholar]
  21. Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Michel, M.
    (2011) Effects of task complexity and interaction in L2 performance. InP. Robinson. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.141–174). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2017) Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency (CAF). InS. Loewen & M. Sato. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp.50–68). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315676968‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-4 [Google Scholar]
  24. Michel, M., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2007) The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 241–259. 10.1515/iral.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  25. O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U.
    (1990) Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524490
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. (2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre- task planning. InR. Ellis. (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.07ort
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.07ort [Google Scholar]
  28. Oxford, R.
    (1989) Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291–300. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1989.tb06367.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06367.x [Google Scholar]
  29. (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2003) Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 271–278. 10.1515/iral.2003.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.012 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pang, F., & Skehan, P.
    (2014) Self-reported planning behavior and second language performance in narrative retelling. InP. Skehan. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.95–127). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.04pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.04pan [Google Scholar]
  32. Sangarun, J.
    (2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. InR. Ellis. (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.111–141). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.08san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.08san [Google Scholar]
  33. Skehan, P.
    (1996) Second-language acquisition research and task-based instructioninJ. Willis & D. Willis. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.17–30). Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2009) Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. InA. Benati. (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp.202–215). Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2018) Second Language Task-Based Performance: Theory, Research, Assessment. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315629766
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315629766 [Google Scholar]
  37. Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
    (2005) Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. InR. Ellis. (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.193–216). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.12ske
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.12ske [Google Scholar]
  38. Syafryadin, S.
    (2020) Students’ strategies in learning speaking: Experience of two Indonesian schools. Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning, 9(1), 34–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tavakoli, P.
    (2016) Fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance: Challenges in defining and measuring L2 fluency. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54(2): 133–150. 10.1515/iral‑2016‑9994
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9994 [Google Scholar]
  40. Tavakoli, P. & Foster, P.
    (2008) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00446.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P.
    (2005) Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. InR. Ellis. (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (239–273). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav [Google Scholar]
  42. Vermeer, A.
    (2000) Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17(1), 65–83. 10.1177/026553220001700103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220001700103 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wang, Z.
    (2014) On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. InP. Skehan. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.27–62). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.02wan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.02wan [Google Scholar]
  44. Wendel, J.
    (1997) Planning and second language narrative production (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Japan.
  45. Yu, G.
    (2010) Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performance. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 236–259. 10.1093/applin/amp024
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp024 [Google Scholar]
  46. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R.
    (2003) The effects of pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. 10.1093/applin/24.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/task.20020.gu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/task.20020.gu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CAF measures; on-line planning; planning strategy; pre-task planning
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