The influence of strategic task based planning on the fluency, accuracy and complexity of speech in two L2s.

1
The influence of strategic task based planning on
the fluency, accuracy and complexity of speech
in two L2s.
TBLT 2, Hawaii

Siska Van Daele, Alex Housen Michel Pierrard
ACQUILANG (Centre for Studies on Second Language
Learning Teaching)
2
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).

3
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).

4
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

5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

• L2 CONSTRAINTS
• limited lexicon
• limited processing capacity
• PLANNING
• types
• (strategic) pre-task
• aids F C
• within-task aids C A

(Levelt, 1989)

• increases processing capacity

6
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

7
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?

8
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 Strategic pre-task planning (SP)
20 EFL Strategic pre-task planning (SP)
20 FFL No planning time (NP)
20 EFL No planning time (NP)
9
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)

10
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.

11
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
  ANOVAs.

12
METHODOLOGY

• C-A-F MEASURES
• COMPLEXITY
• Lexical Diversity Guirauds 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).

13
HYPOTHESES

• EFL FFL speech under the P condition will be
  characterized by higher fluency rates gt
  (pre-task) conceptualization reduces
  hesitation/pausing behavior.
• 2. EFL FFL speech under the P condition will
  be syntactically more complex and lexically more
  diverse gt 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 gt
  advanced (and intermediate ?) learners can attend
  to semantic and syntactic encoding AND monitor
  their output.

14
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?

15
RESULTS FLUENCY
Sig. increase in Eng (F 1,386.91,
p0.012) Near-sig. increase in Fr (F1,38 3.57,
p0.067) Eng gt Fr in both conditions for
both measures (F 1,115316.63, p lt0.0001)
16
RESULTS COMPLEXITY
Sig. increase in IG SCR in Eng (F1,384.77,
p0.035) Sig. increase in IG SCR in Fr
(F1,384.77, p0.035) Eng gt Fr in both
conditions for both measures (F1,115316.63,
p lt0.0001)
17
RESULTS ACCURACY
Sig. decrease in errors in Eng (F1,388.72,
p0.005) No sig. change in Fr (F1,380.00,
p0.983) Eng gt Fr in both conditions for both
measures (F1,116 121.27, plt0.0001)
18
SUMMARY DISCUSSION

• 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?
• Are the effects of unguided strategic pre-task
  planning similar or different for both target
  languages?

ENGLISH-FL FRENCH-FL
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY LEX
COMPLEXITY SYN
ACCURACY LEX 0
ACCURACY GRAM 0
19
SUMMARY DISCUSSION

• 1. EFL FFL speech under the P condition will
  be characterized by higher fluency rates gt
  (pre-task) conceptualization reduces
  hesitation/pausing behavior.

ENGLISH-FL FRENCH-FL
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY LEX
COMPLEXITY SYN
ACCURACY LEX 0
ACCURACY GRAM 0
20
SUMMARY DISCUSSION

• 1. EFL FFL speech under the P condition will
  be characterized by higher fluency rates gt
  (pre-task) conceptualization reduces
  hesitation/pausing behavior.

ENGLISH-FL FRENCH-FL
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY LEX
COMPLEXITY SYN
ACCURACY LEX 0
ACCURACY GRAM 0
21
SUMMARY DISCUSSION
2. EFL FFL speech under the P condition will
be syntactically more complex and lexically more
diverse gt allocation of attention to message
construction in conceptualizer and formulator.
ENGLISH-FL FRENCH-FL
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY LEX
COMPLEXITY SYN
ACCURACY LEX 0
ACCURACY GRAM 0
22
SUMMARY DISCUSSION
2. EFL FFL speech under the P condition will
be syntactically more complex and lexically more
diverse gt allocation of attention to message
construction in conceptualizer and formulator.
ENGLISH-FL FRENCH-FL
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY LEX
COMPLEXITY SYN
ACCURACY LEX 0
ACCURACY GRAM 0
23
SUMMARY DISCUSSION

• 3. EFL FFL speech under the P condition will
  be grammatically and lexically more accurate gt
  advanced (and intermediate ?) learners can attend
  to syntactic and semantic encoding AND monitor
  their output.

ENGLISH-FL FRENCH-FL
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY LEX
COMPLEXITY SYN
ACCURACY LEX 0
ACCURACY GRAM 0
24
SUMMARY DISCUSSION

• 3. EFL FFL speech under the P condition will
  be grammatically and lexically more accurate gt
  advanced (and intermediate ?) learners can attend
  to syntactic and semantic encoding AND monitor
  their output.

ENGLISH-FL FRENCH-FL
FLUENCY
COMPLEXITY LEX
COMPLEXITY SYN
ACCURACY LEX 0
ACCURACY GRAM 0
25
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

26
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 gt 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)

27
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 gtlt non guided
  (Sanguran, 2005)

28
INFORMATION FEEDBACK

• Siska.van.Daele_at_vub.ac.be
• Alex.Housen_at_vub.ac.be
• Michel.Pierrard_at_vub.ac.be

29
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.

30
REFERENCES

• Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to
  Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.),
  Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability
  Theory, (pp. 160). 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.111141). AmsterdamJohn
  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, 62-79.
• 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).
  PhiladelphiaJohn 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.