Coursehero >> Hawaii >> Hawaii >> PP 2007

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, homework solutions, papers, exam answer keys and textbook solutions.

2, TBLT 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) 1 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 ) amount and type of contact with L2 task type and planning conditions 3. Contextual factors: . 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). 2005). type of planning (guided/non guided), task (narrative, decision making ) (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Sanguran, 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 EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be characterized by higher fluency rates > (pre-task) conceptualization reduces hesitation/pausing behavior. 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. 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. . 2. 3. 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 English - SRA English - SRB French - SRA French - SRB 120 Sig. increase in Eng (F 1,38=6.91, p=0.012) Near-sig. increase in Fr (F1,38 =3.57, p=0.067) Eng > Fr in both conditions & for both measures (F 1,115=316.63, p= <0.0001) 100 80 60 40 20 No planning Pre-task planning . RESULTS: COMPLEXITY 5.0 English - IG English - SCR French - IG French - SCR Sig. increase in IG & SCR in Eng (F1,38=4.77, p=0.035) 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) 4.0 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) No sig. change in Fr (F1,38=0.00, p=0.983) 0.4 0.3 0.2 English -LEXACC English - SYNACC French - LEXACC French - SYNACC Eng > Fr in both conditions & for both measures (F1,116 =121.27, p=<0.0001) Accuracy . 0.1 0.0 No planning Pre-task planning 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 FLUENCY COMPLEXITY ACCURACY LEX SYN LEX GRAM + + + + + FRENCH-FL + + + 0 0 . 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 FLUENCY COMPLEXITY ACCURACY LEX LEX SYN GRAM + + + + + FRENCH-FL + + + 0 0 . 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 FLUENCY COMPLEXITY ACCURACY LEX SYN LEX GRAM + + + + + FRENCH-FL + + + 0 0 . 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 FLUENCY COMPLEXITY ACCURACY LEX SYN LEX GRAM + + + + + FRENCH-FL + + + 0 0 . 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 FLUENCY COMPLEXITY ACCURACY LEX SYN LEX GRAM + + + + + FRENCH-FL + + + 0 0 . 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 FLUENCY COMPLEXITY ACCURACY LEX SYN LEX GRAM + + + + + FRENCH-FL + + + 0 0 . 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 FLUENCY COMPLEXITY ACCURACY LEX SYN LEX GRAM + + + + + FRENCH-FL + + + 0 0 . 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 Siska.van.Daele@vub.ac.be Alex.Housen@vub.ac.be Michel.Pierrard@vub.ac.be . REFERENCES Bartning I. & Schlyter S. (2004). Itin raires acquisitionnels et stades de d veloppement en fran aisL2. 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, 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). 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. .

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents: