"The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning on the Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production"- Paper by Rod Ellis, published in Applied Linguistics 30/4, 2009. Available at this LINK to download.
This paper by Rod Ellis is an excellent summary of research on the effects of planning time in L2 oral production till 2009. Ellis puts the research till date in perspective and outlines questions for future research. A summary with comments is given below. I am adding my comments in Italics wherever appropriate. Relevant references are copied from the original paper and given at the end of this post for your quick reference.
Research on the effects of planning time on L2 oral production informs the methodology of task-based teaching for improvement.
Rehearsal and Strategic are both Pre-task planning which is done before the learner actually does the task.
Rehearsal planning is when the learner rehearses the entire task before performing the task a second time.
Strategic planning lets the learner plan what language and content to use during the task, but doesn't let the learner rehearse the task.
Within task planning is when planning takes place during the performance of the task. There are two kinds- Pressurised and Unpressurised. Pressurised planning has a specific time limit. Therefore, learners must strive to finish the task within this constraint. This is otherwise known as pressurised online planning. Unpressurised planning provides unlimited time to complete the task. This leads to careful online planning.
Three aspects of language production are looked at to see the the effect of planning time on them. They are, accuracy, fluency and complexity. They constitute a learner's language proficiency. These three terms are defined by Skehan (1998) and Skehan and Foster (1999). Fluency is the capacity to use language in real time, complexity is the capacity to use more advanced language and Accuracy is the ability to avoid error in performance. In practice, however, researchers develop and use operational definitions to serve the goals of their research. This is problematic when it comes to comparison of different studies.
1. Studies in Rehearsal Panning Time
Rehearsal planning give the learner an opportunity to perform the entire task prior to actual performance that is counted. For the same reason, rehearsal planning time is not practical in testing practice. Ellis cites three studies: Bygate (1996), Gass et.al. (1999) and Bygate (2001). Two major questions are asked in these studies.
i. Does task repetition have any effect on the performance of the same task?
All three studies produced evidence for beneficial effect of task repetition on the performance of the same task.
ii. Does task repetition have any effect on the performance of a new task?
All studies reported that that there is no transference of effects to new tasks, even when the new tasks are of the same type as the rehearsal task.
Which aspect of performance is affected by rehearsal?
Fluency and complexity are the most influenced aspects as reported by all three studies. Bygate used 10 week gaps to see if the effect is due to immediate recall, which is not. Accuracy was found to have no/little effect on performance.
Acquisition-Performance connection
Since the studies showed that there is no transference of the effect to new tasks, it implies that performance in L2 does not lead to acquisition. Or, to lead to acquisition, learners need to get feedback on the initial performance to enable 'noticing' and successive acquisition. An interesting study reported is Sheppard (2006)- an unpublished PhD thesis from the University of Auckland. This study reports the feedback intervention mentioned above.
Thus we could conclude that task repetition affects performance. But when used along with other tools like feedback, it could even lead to acquisition, and positive influences on all three aspects of performance.
i. Does task repetition have any effect on the performance of the same task?
All three studies produced evidence for beneficial effect of task repetition on the performance of the same task.
ii. Does task repetition have any effect on the performance of a new task?
All studies reported that that there is no transference of effects to new tasks, even when the new tasks are of the same type as the rehearsal task.
Which aspect of performance is affected by rehearsal?
Fluency and complexity are the most influenced aspects as reported by all three studies. Bygate used 10 week gaps to see if the effect is due to immediate recall, which is not. Accuracy was found to have no/little effect on performance.
Acquisition-Performance connection
Since the studies showed that there is no transference of the effect to new tasks, it implies that performance in L2 does not lead to acquisition. Or, to lead to acquisition, learners need to get feedback on the initial performance to enable 'noticing' and successive acquisition. An interesting study reported is Sheppard (2006)- an unpublished PhD thesis from the University of Auckland. This study reports the feedback intervention mentioned above.
Thus we could conclude that task repetition affects performance. But when used along with other tools like feedback, it could even lead to acquisition, and positive influences on all three aspects of performance.
2. Studies in Strategic planning time
Ellis cites 19 studies here. He uses four parametres to talk about the results of these studies. They are: learners, settings, tasks and planning.
Learner Variables:
- Second and Foreign language learners
- Proficiency level of learners (most studies looked at intermediate level learners). Wigglesworth (1997), Kawauchi (2005) and Tavakoli and Skehan (2005) manipulated proficiency as a variable.
- Learner's orientation to planning
- Individual learner difference factors
- Classroom
- Laboratory
- Testing
These variables are connected to length of planning time. Compared to testing context, the other two settings provided longer planning time to learners.
Task Variables:
- Interactive Variables (Monologic vs. Dialogic tasks)
- Task Complexity (Simple vs. Complex tasks)
All the testing studies included in Ellis' list used monologic tasks in order to control the multitude of influences that come in with an interlocutor. All initial testing studies used monologues. But there are dialogic testing studies available.
Task complexity or task difficulty is a difficult topic due to many variables involved in it. The factors affecting complexity, and used in the studies listed here are: degree of familiarity with the task context, the degree of structure in the information to be communicated, the number of distinct referents to be encoded and temporal reference (Here-and-Now vs. There-and-Then).
Planning:
- Length of planning time
- Guided vs. Unguided planning
- Form-focus vs. Meaning-focus
Most teaching research used ten minute planning time. Testing research uses lesser duration. Wigglesworth (1997) used 1 minute, Elder and Iwashita (2005) used 3 minutes, and Tavakoli and Skehan (2005) used 5 minutes. Mehnert (1998) studied the effect of varied planning times and found that longer planning time had more effect on performance.
Guided planning asks learners to do particular things while planning, while unguided condition doesn't. Kawauchi (2005) studied three kinds of guided planning: writing what was planned, rehearsal of what is to say, and read a model of what to say.
How does the above variables affect Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy?
The model hypothesises that task and individual variables influence how learners plan and mediate the effect planning has on production. We need to answer the question 'how does planning assist development of fluency and acquisition of linguistic knowledge'. This has yet to be studied. Fluency development and acquisition must be two different phenomena. Like Skehan says, may be fluency is an outcome of development of exemplar-based system. So fluency can develop independent of acquisition. Rehearsal and strategic planning helps learners to develop exemplar-based system. Therefore, such planning helps build fluency. Within-task planning might influence automatization of grammatical knowledge.
There are three senses of acquisition: a) acquisition of new linguistic features, b) restructuring of existing linguistic resources and c) development of greater control or accuracy over existing linguistic features. This understanding is necessary to theorize the relationship between planning and acquisition. The studies have showed that planning has very less influence on first kind of acquisition. Second and third kind of acquisition experiences effects of planning. Planning affects restructuring by its effect on complexity (Skehan, 1998). These assumptions are based on the condition that more complex production leads to acquisition.
Fluency
Operationalisation of Fluency: a. Measure of temporal aspects of fluency (number of words/syllables per minute), b. measure of repair phenomena (false starts, repetitions, reformulations).
General finding in teaching studies is that strategic planning has a positive effect on fluency in both temporal and repair fluency aspects. But in testing, this is different. Elder and Iwashita (2005) found no effect, and Wigglesworth (2001) found negative effect.
Second and foreign language learners experienced positive effects of planning on fluency.
Influence of proficiency level on the effect of planning on fluency was found to be varied. Wigglesworth (1997) found greater effects on the fluency of high proficiency test-takers. Kawauchi (2005) reports positive effect on low and high proficiency learners, but not on advanced learners (probably because they did not need planning time to speak well). Tavakoli and Skehan found that high proficient learners performed better than low proficient learners. Thus with the available data, no conclusion can be made on the effect of planning time for learners of different proficiency levels.
Learner's attitude towards the opportunity to plan found varied results in different studies.
Learner's Memory played a role in fluency in some studies. Guara-Taveres (2008) found that learner's working memory and measures of fluency correlated well when planning time was available.
Effect of Settings have clear conclusions. In laboratory and classroom settings, planning time has positive effects on performance. But in testing context, it seems to have lesser or no effect.
With the available studies, one cannot make a conclusion regarding fluency about the participatory structure of tasks. Majority of studies involving dialogic tasks showed positive effect. Only two studies in monologic tasks did not show an effect.
Task complexity was well studied in Foster and Skehan's studies. They used personal information, narrative and decision making tasks. The first was deemed easy because no external information was needed. The third was deemed more difficult because of the unfamiliarity of information to be communicated, and its lack of availability of structure. Mehnert (1998) found more effect on fluency in more structured tasks. Tavakoli and Skehan (2005) found more effect on fluency on structured tasks. In short, planning interacts with task complexity/difficulty, and the effect on fluency is more in case of less complex tasks.
Length of Planning seems to have a clear effect on fluency. Mehnert (1998) found that longer the planning time, greater the effect.
Type of Planning has an effect. Guided planning had more effect on fluency than unguided planning. But more studies are needed to find when guided planning works better than unguided planning- whether it depends on the nature of the task, proficiency of learners, etc.
Complexity
Operationalisation or measurement of complexity was done through: a. amount of subordination, number of different verb forms used, type-token ration and number of different word types. Results are more mixed than those of fluency studies, although there is plenty of evidence that strategic planning helps up complexity of production. 13 of the 19 studies reported here showed positive effects, while the rest (6) did not find any effect. Overall, strategic planning appears to have a greater effect on grammatical complexity.
Both second and foreign language learners recorded benefit from planning on complexity.
Proficiency: Advanced learners may not benefit from planning in terms of complexity (Kawauchi, 2005).
Working memory was found to be significantly related to complexity in planning group, not in no-planning group (Guara´-Tavares, 2008).
Complexity doesn't depend on laboratory/class setting. In testing, there is very less or no effect on complexity.
Task factors interact with planning time to have an effect on complexity, but 'how' is not clear. Most dialogic and monologic tasks showed a positive effect of planning on complexity.
Task complexity: Foster and Skehan (1996) found that more complex decision making tasks did not have an effect on complexity while personal information and narrative tasks have higher grammatical richness with planning condition. But other studies give different results. More studies are needed to reach conclusions.
Planning time variable: Mehnert's (1998) is the only study in planning time variable reported no effect on complexity in all of her different conditions. Different types of planning also did not have any effect on complexity. The degree of guidance might have an effect on the outcomes, however.
Accuracy
Accuracy also showed mixed results in various results. Thirteen of the studies found that planning enhanced accuracy but six reported no effect.
Learner’s proficiency has an effect on accuracy. Kawauchi (2005) found less effect on advanced level learners than low proficiency learners. Learner proficiency needs to be controlled while investigating effects of planning on accuracy.
Learners’ attitudes towards planning also have an effect on accuracy.
Working memory wasn't found to be related to accuracy.
Task type is a potential influence factor. Interaction between task type and planning where accuracy is concerned. Foster and Skehan (1996) reported that planning led to greater accuracy in personal and decision making tasks (low and high difficulty tasks). No conclusion is really possible about how task type influences the effect that planning has on accuracy. How learners orientate to the task is also an important task.
Type of planning failed to find effects in the studies listed here. Mochizuki, N. and L. Ortega. (2008) showed that when the guided planning is focused it can have an effect on accuracy.
General Comments
Overall, strategic planning has clear effects on task performance. In the light of research, it is possible to say that conclusions about learner and task variables' influence on performance can be made. But we need more data and more studies that carefully control and manipulate these variables.
Ellis questions: The three dimensions of performance we chose are not perfect descriptors of performance. Are ratings based on these these dimensions sensitive to the influence of strategic planning? This doubt is natural since no study reported an effect of planning on the ratings even when there were differences in discourse analysis results! It may thus seem that ratings are sensitive to influence of strategic planning on fluency in learning context, not in testing.
Thus testing context seems insulated to the influence of strategic planning in terms of fluency. Only Wigglesworth (1997) showed that there is a significant effect (in discourse analysis). Why such insulation? Ellis speculates that it is because the test-taker knows that he/she is being tested, which leads to focus on accuracy at the expense of fluency and complexity. That is, testing context neutralizes the influence of planning otherwise available in learning contexts. Or may be the length of planning must be longer (althouth Mehnert (1998) proves this wrong).
But in learning studies, strategic planning is found to have consistent influence on fluency throughout almost all studies. Prior planning of what to say saves on attentional resources enabling learner to speak fluently. Skehan proposes this trade-off between aspects of performance when learners focus on one aspect of performance. Depending on what is prioritized, the other aspects suffer. This explains the variable results of many studies. More studies are needed to say definite things about the influence of learner characteristics and task characteristics.
Proficiency is one such variable that must be studied. Except in testing context, it has shown variations.
Task variables like degree of structure need to be studied in detail. Existing studies have shown effects. But what is less clear is how task structure interacts with planning.
Other considerations are:
Thus testing context seems insulated to the influence of strategic planning in terms of fluency. Only Wigglesworth (1997) showed that there is a significant effect (in discourse analysis). Why such insulation? Ellis speculates that it is because the test-taker knows that he/she is being tested, which leads to focus on accuracy at the expense of fluency and complexity. That is, testing context neutralizes the influence of planning otherwise available in learning contexts. Or may be the length of planning must be longer (althouth Mehnert (1998) proves this wrong).
But in learning studies, strategic planning is found to have consistent influence on fluency throughout almost all studies. Prior planning of what to say saves on attentional resources enabling learner to speak fluently. Skehan proposes this trade-off between aspects of performance when learners focus on one aspect of performance. Depending on what is prioritized, the other aspects suffer. This explains the variable results of many studies. More studies are needed to say definite things about the influence of learner characteristics and task characteristics.
Proficiency is one such variable that must be studied. Except in testing context, it has shown variations.
Task variables like degree of structure need to be studied in detail. Existing studies have shown effects. But what is less clear is how task structure interacts with planning.
Other considerations are:
- Whether planning is guided or unguided.
- Whether focus is invited to form or meaning.
3. Studies in Within-task planning time
In fact there is only few studies that report this. Yuan and Ellis (2003) compared the performance of learners in pressurised (no planning) and unpressurised (within-task planning) planning time conditions. Learners with the within-task planning condition spoke longer. Fluency was not significantly different for both groups. Within-task planning resulted in greater syntactical complexity (without much differences in syntactical and lexical variety). It also generated more accurate speech in terms of error-free clauses and verbs. Surprisingly, there was no effect on fluency, probably due to the pressure to speak without prior planning. Thus the study concludes that when given ample time to plan, we can expect more accurate and complex speech in learning contexts.
One problem with this kind of planning is that we do not know what the learners were doing during the planning stage. Other studies have shown that the effect of unpressurised planning is most beneficial in the initial stages of the task performance.
The summary of another study by Ahmadian and Tavakoli (2010) can be accessed at this link. (Language Teaching Research, Vol. 15, Issue 1).
Summary
Strategic planning is the most researched planning type so far. This preference is not theory-based. The other two types of planning must be examined with equal vigour.
Rehearsal results in greater fluency and complexity. But these effects do not transfer to the performance of a new task unless there is some kind of additional intervention. That is, simple repetition of a task may not have a measurable impact on acquisition.
Strategic planning clearly benefits fluency. Results are mixed with complexity and accuracy. The possible trade-off between these two aspects must be the reason (i.e. learners will tend to prioritize either complexity or accuracy). Other variables which have an impact on the effect of strategic planning are the learners’proficiency (the effects are less evident in very advanced learners),the degree of structure of the information in the task and working memory.
Within-task planning may benefit complexity and accuracy without having a detrimental effect on fluency.
Theoretical Perspectives
Theories of variability
Levelt's model of speaking
Skehan's theory
Robinson's theory
Levelt's Model
There are three overlapping processes: conceptualisation, forumlation and articulation. The utterances can be monitored prior to and after the production.
Two characteristics of speech production: a) controlled and automatic processing, b) incremental production. Conceptualiser and monitor operate under controlled processing. Formulator and articulator operate under automated conditions. However, the cases of native speakers and learners might be different in terms of formulation and articulation.
Putting Levelt's model along with the limited attentional processes of learners explains many findings of the studies discussed above. The relationships between planning and aspects of performances can be understood with this theoretical background.
- Rehearsal and strategic planning are likely to assist conceptualization and thus facilitate fluency
- They may have effects on formulation and articulation as well since the linguistic resources necessary are already accessed during conceptualisation.
- Fluency oriented learners may not benefit in terms of complexity and accuracy. In other words, since only limited resources are available, focus on one aspects leads to problems in other aspects of performance.
- Advanced learners who have lesser problems in formulation and articulation will have an effect on fluency, but much less on complexity and accuracy.
- In unpressurised within-task planning, complexity and accuracy may increase due to benefits to formulation.
These accounts are helpful in understanding how things work. But we also need to know how individual differences interact with different aspects of performance and variables we study. All learners do not engage in all the processes to the same extent. Orientation, working memory, language aptitude, willingness to communicate, and anxiety are a few such individual differences.
A framework suggested by Ellis has four sets of variables.
TTT
The model hypothesises that task and individual variables influence how learners plan and mediate the effect planning has on production. We need to answer the question 'how does planning assist development of fluency and acquisition of linguistic knowledge'. This has yet to be studied. Fluency development and acquisition must be two different phenomena. Like Skehan says, may be fluency is an outcome of development of exemplar-based system. So fluency can develop independent of acquisition. Rehearsal and strategic planning helps learners to develop exemplar-based system. Therefore, such planning helps build fluency. Within-task planning might influence automatization of grammatical knowledge.
There are three senses of acquisition: a) acquisition of new linguistic features, b) restructuring of existing linguistic resources and c) development of greater control or accuracy over existing linguistic features. This understanding is necessary to theorize the relationship between planning and acquisition. The studies have showed that planning has very less influence on first kind of acquisition. Second and third kind of acquisition experiences effects of planning. Planning affects restructuring by its effect on complexity (Skehan, 1998). These assumptions are based on the condition that more complex production leads to acquisition.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There is lack of information on what learners do during planning.
Within-task planning and the combined effects of within-task and pre-task planning haven't been studied yet.
Longitudinal study of the effects of planning has not been done yet. The maximum duration so far is ten weeks!
Studies listed did not collect baseline data of native speakers performing the same tasks.
Stuidies did not give proficiency level data of the learners.
No study has investigated the extended performance of learners on a task (not just the early stage of the task, but the entirety of the task performance).
How individual learner factors affect performance is not studied yet.
References
Bygate, M. (1996). ‘Effects of task repetition:
Appraising the developing language of learners’
in J. Willis and D. Willis (eds): Challenge
and Change in Language Teaching. Heinemann.
Bygate, M. (2001). ‘Effects of task repetition on
the structure and control of oral language’
in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain
(eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second
Language Learning, Teaching and Testing.
Longman.
Elder, C. and N. Iwashita. (2005). ‘Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference?’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.
Elder, C. and N. Iwashita. (2005). ‘Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference?’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2005). ‘Planning and task-based
research: theory and research’ in R. Ellis
(ed.): Planning and Task-Performance in a
Second Language. John Benjamins.
Foster, P. and P. Skehan. (1996). ‘The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18/3: 299–324.
Foster, P. and P. Skehan. (1996). ‘The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18/3: 299–324.
Gass, S., A. Mackey, M. Fernandez and
M. Alvarez-Torres. (1999). ‘The effects of
task repetition on linguistic output,’ Language
Learning 49: 549–80.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). ‘The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and Task-Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.
Mehnert, U. (1998). ‘The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 52–83.
Mochizuki, N. and L. Ortega. (2008). ‘Balancing communication and grammar in beginninglevel foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization,’ Language Teaching Research 12: 11–37.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). ‘The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and Task-Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.
Mehnert, U. (1998). ‘The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 52–83.
Mochizuki, N. and L. Ortega. (2008). ‘Balancing communication and grammar in beginninglevel foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization,’ Language Teaching Research 12: 11–37.
Sheppard, C. 2006. The Effects of Instruction
Directed at the Gaps Second Language Learners
Noticed in their Oral Production. Unpublished
PhD Thesis, University of Auckland.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. and P. Foster. (1999). ‘The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings,’ Language Learning 49/1:93–120.
Tavakoli, P. and S. Skehan. (2005). ‘Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and TaskPerformance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). ‘An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse,’ Language Testing 14/1: 21–44.
Yuan, F. and R. Ellis. (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.
Tavakoli, P. and S. Skehan. (2005). ‘Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and TaskPerformance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). ‘An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse,’ Language Testing 14/1: 21–44.
Yuan, F. and R. Ellis. (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.
No comments:
Post a Comment