planning and focus-on-form in task- based language learning ryo nitta university of warwick tblt...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Planning and Focus-on-form in Task-Planning and Focus-on-form in Task-Based Language LearningBased Language Learning
Ryo Nitta
University of Warwick
TBLT ConferenceLeuven, 2005
![Page 2: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
IntroductionIntroduction
1. Two research traditions in SLA: planning and focus-on-form
2. The study: analysis of task performance and verbal protocols
3. Findings of task performance analysis
4. Implications
5. Issues for the second stage
![Page 3: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Types of Planning (Ellis, 2005)Types of Planning (Ellis, 2005)
Planning
Pre-task planning
Within-task planning
Rehearsal (task repetition)
Strategic planning
Pressured
Unpressured (on-line planning)
![Page 4: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Strategic vs. On-line PlanningStrategic vs. On-line Planning
1. Strategic planning
• Information-processing model
• Skill-learning model
2. On-line planning
• L2 Monitoring (Morrison & Law, 1983)
• Careful within-task planning (Yuan & Ellis, 2003)
![Page 5: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Summary of the Previous ResearchSummary of the Previous Research
Fluency Complexity Accuracy Source
Strategic
Planning
Positive Positive Limited e.g., Crookes (1989), Foster & Skehan (1996)
On-line
planning
Negative Positive Positive e.g., Ellis (1988), Yuan & Ellis (2003)
![Page 6: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Focus-on-Form InstructionFocus-on-Form Instruction
• The noticing issue: Do learners have the cognitive resources to notice the gap between their IL utterances and the TL utterances around them?
• The interruption issue: Is a pedagogical intervention that does not interrupt the learner’s own processing for language learning even possible?
• The timing issue: If so, then precisely ‘when’, in cognitive terms, should the pedagogical intervention occur? (Doughty, 2001)
![Page 7: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Identifying a Link between Planning Identifying a Link between Planning and Focus-on-Formand Focus-on-Form
• Theoretical issue: Strategic planning facilitates a learner-driven focus-on-form (Ortega, 1999, 2005)
• Methodological issue: A process-product approach to planning. How do L2 learners plan during strategic planning time? (Ortega, 1999, 2005; Sangarun, 2005)
![Page 8: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Research QuestionsResearch Questions
• Do different planning conditions differently influence the oral performance?
• How do L2 speakers plan their speech on-line when their performance is underway? Do they focus on form in on-line planning more frequently than strategic and no-planning conditions?
![Page 9: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Research Hypotheses for Task Research Hypotheses for Task Performance Analysis (1)Performance Analysis (1)
• Hypothesis One: Strategic planning (SP) will give more positive influence on fluency, complexity and accuracy than no-planning (NP).
• Hypothesis Two: On-line planning (OP) will give more positive influence on complexity and accuracy, but more negative influence on fluency than NP.
• Hypothesis Three: OP will give more positive influence on complexity and accuracy, but more negative influence on fluency than SP.
![Page 10: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Research Hypotheses for Task Research Hypotheses for Task Performance Analysis (2)Performance Analysis (2)
• Hypothesis Four: The effects of SP will interact with the different proficiency levels.
• Hypothesis Five: The effects of OP will interact with the different proficiency levels.
![Page 11: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Research DesignResearch Design
Research Stages Contents Comments
1. Pre-Task General instruction
2. Task Task (rehearsal)
Task 1
↓
Task 2
↓
Task 3
3. Post-Task Retrospective interview
NP SP OP
↓ ↓ ↓
SP OP NP
↓ ↓ ↓
OP NP SP
![Page 12: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
TaskTask
• Story-telling tasks x 3: 6 picture cartoons taken from a popular story-telling resource book for EFL learners (Heaton, 1975).
• Different, but clearly structured tasks (cf. Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005)
• The first obligatory sentence was given to encourage the use of past tense forms in each task, following Ellis (1987).
![Page 13: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Task ImplementationTask Implementation
Before Task During Task
No-planning (NP) 30 seconds 2 minutes
Strategic planning (SP) 10 minutes 2 minutes
On-line planning (OP) 30 seconds unlimited
![Page 14: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
ParticipantsParticipants
• 27 Japanese speakers of English (male = 11, female = 16)
• Length of residence: mean = 11.86 (months), SD = 13.74, Range = 0.25 (i.e., 1 week) - 41.00 (i.e., 3 years and 5 months)
• High vs. Low Proficiency: 6-point global ratings by three raters to judge the NP speech. The average scores were used to categorize high and low proficient groups.
![Page 15: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
FluencyFluency
1. Pruned speech rates2. Mean length of run3. Total length of pauses per minute4. Number of end-clause pauses per 100 words5. Number of mid-clause pauses per 100 words6. Number of filled pauses7. Number of dysfluencies (i.e., false-starts,
reformulation, repetition and self-correction)
![Page 16: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
ComplexityComplexity
1. Syntactic complexity: the number of clauses per AS-unit (Foster, Tonkyn and Wigglesworth, 2000)
2. Discoursal complexity: the number of discourse organization devices (Ejzenberg, 2000)
• Chaining integration devices
• Grammatical integration devices
![Page 17: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
AccuracyAccuracy
1. Global measures: percentage of error-free clauses (e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996)
2. Specific measures:• Percentage of target-like verb forms (Yuan & Ellis,
2003)• Percentage of target-like article (Crookes, 1989)
![Page 18: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Factor AnalysisFactor Analysis
• On the whole, the results of three factor analyses represent three independent dimensions, fluency, complexity and accuracy.
• Mean length of run was selected for MANOVA analysis as a fluency component.
• The number of grammatical integration devices was selected as a complexity component.
• The percentage of error-free clauses was selected as an accuracy component.
![Page 19: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Repeated measures MANOVA Repeated measures MANOVA
Effects Value F Hypothesis
df
Error
df
Sig
Between-participants
Proficiency .487 8.08 3 23 .001*
Within-participants
Planning .283 8.45 6 20 .001*
Planning*proficiency .524 3.03 6 20 .028*
![Page 20: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Univariate test of within-participant Univariate test of within-participant effecteffect
Source Measure Sum of Squares
df Mean Square F Sig. Location of Sig.
Planning MLR 12.21 2 6.10 9.75 .001* NP>OP, SP>OP
GID 144.65 1.28 113.39 8.84 .003* SP>NP, OP>NP
Error-free 2041.17 2 1020.59 4.36 .018* OP>NP
Planning*
Proficiency
MLR 2.99 2 1.49 2.38 .103
GID 39.91 1.28 31.29 2.44 .122
Error-free 2276.64 2 1138.32 4.86 .012*
![Page 21: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
ANOVAs in Two Proficiency GroupsANOVAs in Two Proficiency Groups High Low
Measures F Sig. Location of Sig.
F Sig. Location of Sig.
Pruned SR 20.14 .001* NP>OP
SP>OP
22.31 .001* SP>NP
NP>OP
MLR 7.04 .004* NP>OP
SP>OP
4.78 .018*
Mid-clause pauses 1.79 .188 12 .001* NP>SP
OP>SP
Dysfluencies 5.31 .012* SP>NP
OP>NP
10.83 .001* OP>NP OP>SP
Grammatical integration
6.18 .020* SP>NP
OP>NP
4.61 .020* OP>NP
Error-free clauses .04 .957 7.6 .003* OP>NP
TL Verb forms .3 .744 6.28 .006* OP>NP
![Page 22: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Specific Accuracy Measures
High LowProficiency Group
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
Est
imat
ed M
arg
inal
Mea
ns
planning
NP
SP
OP
Percentage of Targetlike Article
High LowProficiency Group
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Est
imat
ed
Mar
gin
al M
ean
s
planning
NP
SP
OP
Percentage of Targetlike Verb Forms
![Page 23: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
ImplicationsImplications
1. Trading-off between fluency and form• Fluency and accuracy• Fluency and complexity
2. Interaction between fluency and proficiency • Monologic story-telling task type? • Dual mode?
3. Interaction between accuracy and proficiency
4. Form-focused effects of on-line planning
![Page 24: Planning and Focus-on-form in Task- Based Language Learning Ryo Nitta University of Warwick TBLT Conference Leuven, 2005](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649ea95503460f94badaa5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Next StageNext Stage
1. To identify the mental operations in the three planning conditions.
2. To identify different mental operations between high and low proficient speakers.
• Strategic planning High proficient speakers
• On-line planning Low proficient speakers