Planning and Task-based Oral Performance

Nargiza Tadjiyeva, Uzbekistan

Nargiza Tadjiyeva is an Associate Lecturer at Westminster International University in Tashkent. She is teaching Academic English. Her research interests include exploring the roles of tasks on learners’ oral performance and cognitive processes underlying second language speaking. E-mail; n_tadjiyeva@wiut.uz

Menu

Introduction
Methodology
Results and discussion
Suggestions for future research
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The linguistic knowledge of L2 learners is primarily evaluated by their ability to use a foreign language and the samples of the language they produce provide evidence of how learners “use their L2 knowledge in real-time communication” (Ellis, 2003, p1). However, speaking in a foreign language is one of the most cognitively demanding skills for L2 learners. While speaking, speakers conceptualize, formulate and articulate the messages and those mostly processes run in parallel (Ellis, 2003), but doing all of these at the same time is not easy for language learners.

On the other hand, in modern language classes, “engaging the learners in real language use in the classroom” is seen as the best way to teach a language and task-based teaching is argued to help that become a possibility. (Willis and Willis, 2007, p.1) Successful completion of a task is a priority and for that speaking can play a significant role. Conveying meaning is usually the main concern. This may then be followed by attention to form in the more advanced levels. However, the question that may rise here is whether there is any possibility for both form and function to be taken into consideration at the same time by language learners of all levels when completing an oral task.

The role of the planning time on L2 learners’ oral performance has attracted a great deal of attention among the SLA researchers and several studies have been conducted on the effects of the planning in various contexts, exploiting different speaking tasks and planning conditions (Ellis, 2005; Ellis and Yuan, 2005; Ortega 2005; Foster and Skehan, 1996). According to Ellis and when preparing for oral tasks two types of planning are involved: pre-task and within task (or online) The pre-task planning is further divided into the rehearsal and strategic planning. In rehearsal, learners perform the oral task before the actual performance. In strategic planning learners prepare the propositional content of their task, speech. Strategic planning could be guided (information on what to plan, how to plan, focus on form is provided by the teacher/researcher) or unguided planning (learners decide what to do and what to focus on themselves). The aim of the current study is to investigate the effects of planning time in the oral performance of the learners of English in a task-based classroom. To be precise, accuracy, fluency and complexity of the forms have been studied.

Methodology

Considering the limited processing capacity of lower proficiency L2 learners, and their inability to attend equally to meaning and form, I assumed that planning would ease the limitation of the working memory. In order to examine this, I assumed that if L2 learners were given some time to prepare before producing a speech, then they could focus on both meaning and form. And I formed my research question accordingly.

Research Question

The participants were 19 female and 3 male full-time students aged between 22 and 37, who studied at Lancaster University and were native speakers of Chinese (Mandarin-14, Cantonese-5), French (1) and Japanese (2). Their average IELTS score was 6.6 with a range of 6.0 to 7.5

Instruments and procedures

A narrative task was used in the study to check participants’ performance. Two different sets of six pictures were used and they did not have an inherent structure, background or foreground information. Every participant was given one set of pictures at a time and was asked to narrate a relevant story, including all the pictures from the set, but they were also encouraged to add some extra information if they wanted to. The study employed “within subjects’ design in which participants performed both planned and unplanned tasks. Planning and the task type were counterbalanced to avoid sequence effect. Every participant performed one task in two condition pre-task planning (PTP) and no planning (NP)

Table 1 Order and the condition of the tasks

Participants were given five minutes for unguided strategic planning and unpressured within task planning

No planning

Participants were not given any time for strategic planning but had only one minute to familiarize themselves with the task and pictures. They were also engaged in unpressured within task planning

Measures

Independent variable

1. Length of time: total number of seconds spent on each task
2. Syllable A: total number of syllables produced. This was the measure of productivity.
3. Syllable B: total number of syllables excluding all syllables that were subsequently repeated, replaced or reformulated. (measure of meaningful productivity)

Dependent variables

1. Fluency: For measuring fluency one specific and one general measure of fluency were used:
   • The number of disfluencies per minute: The total number of disfluencies such as repetitions, repairs, restarts divided by the total amount of time expressed in seconds and then multiplied by sixty
   • The number of filled pauses per minute: The total number of filled pauses were divided by the total amount of time expressed in seconds and was multiplied by sixty
   • The number of meaningful syllables per minute: the number of syllables within each narrative, excluding repetitions, reformulations, repeated or replaced phrases.
2. Accuracy: For measuring accuracy the following grammatical aspect were chosen:
   1. third person singular pronouns (she/he), pronouns (him, her, himself, herself), possessive pronominal adjective (his, her)
   2. adjectives
   3. tense consistency

The accuracy was measured in the following way:

1. The total number of notional verbs divided by the correct number of verbs and multiplied by hundred. Direct speech and the personal opinions of the narrator such as:’ I think...’ within the narratives were not counted
2. The total number of adverbs and adjectives divided by the correct number of adverbs and adjectives and then multiplied by hundred. The adjectives that were the part of the predicate (get scared, to be safe, to be young, to be interested) were not counted. If the adjectives that was the part of the predicate used incorrectly (for example such phrases as ‘I am interesting, I was horrifying’, instead of ‘–interested or –horrified’) they were counted as tense errors. The adjectives and adverbs that were the part of the repetitions, repairs, and restarts were not counted.
3. To total number of third person, singular pronouns (she, he, her, his, him, herself, himself). The pronouns that were the part of the repetitions, repairs, restarts were not counted.

Complexity

Syntactic variety: The total number of different grammatical verb forms used in the task. Grammatical verb forms used for analysis were tense (e. g simple past, past continuous,), modality (should, have to) and voice (e. g passive voice in the past tense)

Results and discussion

Table 2 illustrates results related to independent variables. It can be seen that when participants performed the task under PTP condition, it took longer to complete the task (mean=181.77seconds), than when they performed the task under NP condition (mean=155.77 seconds). However, a paired sample t-test showed that the difference between the planned and unplanned groups was not significant.

For Syllable A, there was no significant difference between the two groups either. T-test results showed that PTP group produced more syllables than NP group. No significant difference was observed in two groups for Syllable B either. Though, PTP group produced more meaningful syllables than NP group.

In general, these results indicate that, as intended, the PTP group could be distinguished from the NP group in terms of the amount of time spent on task and the amount of speech produced, although the difference was not significant.

Table 2. Independent variables

Table 3 illustrates results of fluency. It demonstrates that participants produced significantly less disfluencies, when they were performing under PTP condition (mean=2.93), whereas under NP condition they produce more disfluencies (3.67) compared to PTP condition. The significant difference between the groups can also be observed in the number of filled pauses. Participants produced significantly less filled pauses under PTP condition (mean=2.48) than they performed in NP condition (mean=3.54). Similarly, participants produced more meaningful syllables per minute under PTP condition (mean=109) compared to NP (mean=107.78) condition, but this difference was negligible.

Table 3. Dependent variables Fluency

*P<0.05

Table 4 shows the results for accuracy. Accuracy was measured in terms of how accurately the learners used the third person singular pronouns, adverbs, adjectives and verb tenses in their narratives under the two conditions. In PTP condition, participants use third person singular pronouns more accurately, than they did in NP condition. Participants used adjectives and adverbs more accurately in PTP condition (mean=96.42) compared to NP condition (mean=91.26). Additionally, in PTP condition (mean= 55.56) participants were more consistent in using the verb tense compared to NP condition (mean=53.56). As we observe, participants performed better in PTP condition than in NP condition in all three measures of accuracy. However, paired sample t-test results did not show any significant differences between two conditions in either measures of accuracy.

Table 4. Accuracy

Table 5 shows the results for grammatical complexity. In NP condition (mean=3.81), participants used fewer grammatical verb forms than they did in PTP condition (mean=4.13) but the difference between two groups was not significant.

Table 5 Grammatical complexity

As we can see from the outcomes above, strategic planning to certain degree had a positive effect on participants’ fluency. Although in the aspects of accuracy and grammatical complexity participants used more accurate and complex structures in PTP condition than in NP condition, the difference in performances between the conditions was not significant. Statistical significance could only be observed in the measures of fluency. Participants in PTP condition used significantly less filled pauses and produced less disfluencies per minute than in NP condition. No significant difference was found in performance where accuracy and complexity were concerned.

The lack of the significant difference in the measures of accuracy can be explained by the fact that participants in both conditions (PTP- NP) performed the task under on-line unpressured planning. It could be assumed that the availability of the unpressured within task (on-line) planning in both PTP and NP conditions might have allowed participants to engage in the careful monitoring of their speech. Consequently, unpressured on-line planning brought about similar results in accuracy and grammatical complexity in both conditions and served as an equalizer for both groups.

However, as Table 6 shows standard deviation in the PTP condition was higher in some measures of fluency and grammatical complexity and the time spent on the task.

Table 6. Standard Deviation between PTP and NP group

These variables might imply that not every participant benefited from the availability of the time for strategic planning.

More fluent performance under PTP condition can be attributed to the availability of the planning time. Participants were engaged in thinking of the propositional content and have decided what they are going to say before they performed the task. Consequently, they did not hesitate about the content during performance and performed fluently.

To summarize, the linguistic outcomes of the participants’ performance showed that strategic planning had a positive effect on the overall performance of the participants. Availability of the planning time enabled participants to produce more fluent, accurate and complex utterances. However, the difference between the groups was not significant where the accuracy and complexity were concerned. Statistical significance could only be observed in the measures of fluency. Significant difference in fluency could be explained by the availability of planning time, and task requirement. Since the task requirement was to make up a story using the pictures with no inherent structure, it is natural that learners will first plan the content and think of the meaning not form.

Suggestions for future research

The present study did not include the participants of all level of proficiency, it only included Intermediate level. To evaluate the effects of the planning on the spoken performance participants with different proficiency levels (elementary and advanced levels) should be included in the study.

The study made use of the pictures with no inherent structure and it took participants much time for planning propositional context. To further explore the effects of strategic planning on task based oral performance, different task types (a set of pictures with inherent structure) and different task planning conditions (guided planning) should be exploited in the future studies.

Conclusion

To sum up, the strategic planning proved to have a positive effect on the fluency of the participants, whereas there was no significant difference between the planned and unplanned discourse where accuracy and complexity were concerned. The present study supports the findings of the previous research on strategic planning and in terms of pedagogical practice, the findings of this research provide the information for L2 teachers on how L2 speech could be benefited by the availability of planning time. The findings suggest that planning could improve the quality of L2 learners’ speech.

References

Ellis, R (2003) Task-based language learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005) Planning and task-based performance. Theory and research. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and Task performance in a Second language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp 3-34

Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and Task performance in a Second language. Amsterdam: Benjamins pp167-192

Foster, P., & Skehan, P (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol 18, Number3, pp299-323

Ortega, L. (2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and Task performance in a Second language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp77-109

Skehan (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Willis, D., Willis J (2007) Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Please check the Methodology & Language for Secondary Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the English Language Improvement for Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the English Language Improvement for Adults course at Pilgrims website.