1

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)

TBLT 2, Hawai’i

.

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).

BACKGROUND

.

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).

AIMS

.

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-taskaids F & C

within-task aids C & A

(Levelt, 1989) increases processing capacity

.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKPREVIOUS 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

.

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?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

.

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):

METHODOLOGY

20 FFLStrategic pre-task planning (SP)

20 EFL

20 FFLNo planning time (NP)

20 EFL

.

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)

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning in Flanders:

.

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

.

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

No planning Pre-task planning

Vlotheid

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

English - SRAEnglish - SRB French - SRA French - SRB

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)

.

RESULTS: COMPLEXITY

No planning Pre-task planning

Com

plexity

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

4.0

5.0

English - IGEnglish - SCRFrench - IGFrench - SCR

Sig. increase in IG & SCRin 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)

.

RESULTS: ACCURACY

No planning Pre-task planning

Accuracy

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

English -LEXACCEnglish - SYNACCFrench - LEXACCFrench - SYNACC

Sig. decrease in errorsin Eng (F1,38=8.72, p=0.005)

No sig. change in Fr (F1,38=0.00, p=0.983)

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

FLUENCY + +

COMPLEXITYLEX + +

SYN + +

ACCURACYLEX + 0

GRAM + 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 FRENCH-FL

FLUENCY + +

COMPLEXITYLEX + +

SYN + +

ACCURACYLEX + 0

GRAM + 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 FRENCH-FL

FLUENCY + +

COMPLEXITYLEX + +

SYN + +

ACCURACYLEX + 0

GRAM + 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 FRENCH-FL

FLUENCY + +

COMPLEXITYLEX + +

SYN + +

ACCURACYLEX + 0

GRAM + 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 FRENCH-FL

FLUENCY + +

COMPLEXITYLEX + +

SYN + +

ACCURACYLEX + 0

GRAM + 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 FRENCH-FL

FLUENCY + +

COMPLEXITYLEX + +

SYN + +

ACCURACYLEX + 0

GRAM + 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 FRENCH-FL

FLUENCY + +

COMPLEXITYLEX + +

SYN + +

ACCURACYLEX + 0

GRAM + 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). 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, 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.