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
Sig. increase in Eng
(F 1,38=6.91, p=0.012)
English - SRA
English - SRB
120
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
5.0
Sig. increase in IG & SCR
in Eng (F1,38=4.77, p=0.035)
French - IG
French - SCR
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
.
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
A c c u ra c y
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.
.
Descargar

Psycholinguistic mechanisms underlying the production …