Ronggan Zhang The Affiliated High School South China Normal University The Influence of Source of Planning on Senior High School Learners’ Oral FL Performance Ronggan Zhang The Affiliated High School South China Normal University 5th International Conference on ELT in China 1st Chinese Congress of Applied Linguistics Beijing, May 16-21, 2007

Overview Introduction Research questions Pre-task planning Methodology Discussion Conclusion

1. Introduction Language variation (L1 & L2) Interlanguage: a variable learner system Variables affecting interlanguage Internal variables (e.g., phonetic environment) External variables (e.g., task and planning time) Information processing theory Attentional resources: limited Planning: to free up to redirect towards a focus on form dev

1. Introduction Most pre-task planning studies Rationales ‘have not been fine-grained enough to suggest exactly how planning impacts upon performance’ (Foster and Skehan, 1999, p. 237).  Source of planning are limited in the context of tertiary education  extend to a context of secondary education Rationales Practical: TBLT promoted in China (MOE, 2001) Theoretical: ‘fine-grained’ dev

2. Research questions What effects does pre-task planning have on beginner proficiency learners’ L2 performance in an oral decision-making task? What effects does source of planning have on beginner proficiency learners’ L2 performance in an oral decision-making task?

3.1. Pre-task planning and on-line planning planning time = the time for planning (e.g., Mehnert, 1998; Philp, Oliver & Mackey, 2006) = ‘the planning that takes place when learners are given time to plan a task prior to performing it’ (Ellis, 2003, p. 25) pre-task planning (e.g., Foster, 1996; Ting, 1996) strategic planning (e.g., Ellis, 2003) planning Wendel (1997), cited in Yuan and Ellis (2003, p. 4) strategic planning (pre-task planning) on-line planning (Wendel, 1997)

3.1. Pre-task planning and on-line planning In my paper: planning pre-task planning = the planning prior to task performance on-line planning = the planning during performance of a task planning time = the time for planning unless particularly specified pre-task planning on-line planning Wendel (1997), cited in Yuan and Ellis (2003, p. 4)

3.2. Options for pre-task planning Researchers make decisions about the following options for pre-task planning: Planning: with or without pre-task planning? Guidance: Guided or unguided planning? Detail: Detailed guided or undetailed guided? Focus: language focus or content focus? Source: solitary, pair, group, or teacher-led planning? Time: how much time for planning?

3.2. Options for pre-task planning Table 1. Foster and Skehan’s (1999) options for pre-task planning

3.3. Source of planning Working definition not explicitly defined in Foster and Skehan (1999) similar to Ellis’s (2003, pp. 263-275) participatory structure for tasks in the classroom the procedures that govern how teacher’s and learners’ contributions to the performance of pre-task planning are organised. (Slightly modified from Ellis’s participatory structure)

3.3. Source of planning Results from Foster and Skehan (1999) Teacher-fronted condition with significant accuracy effects Solitary planning most effective where fluency, complexity and turn length concerned Group-based planning not significantly different from the control group

4.1. Participants 48 Grade 11 (termed Senior 2 in China) students divided into 6 groups of 8 Learning history Scored an average of 75-90% in the most recent mid-term exam and another five tests Data of the final exam entered into one-way ANOVAs: no significant differences across the six groups in the total scores (F = .592; p = .706), writing scores (F = 1.913; p = .113), and listening scores (F = 1.322; p = .274)

4.2. Task a balloon debate three characters, balloon losing altitude all other stratagems exhausted; to avoid a crash, to jettison one or more passengers. The aim is to decide which of the three to be thrown overboard. Decision-making task (following Foster & Skehan, 1999) Two characters changed: actor and politician  farmer and football star One character retained: EFL teacher

4.3. Design two levels of L2 performance, but focus on speaking here Four levels of source of planning Table 2. Research design two control groups (no planning)

4.4. Planning conditions Table 3. Operationalization of options of pre-task planning

4.4. Planning conditions six planning conditions six individual sessions regular English class, regular classroom approximately 40 minutes each instruction given by the researcher PowerPoint (PPT) presentation Group 1: Solitary planning Group 2: Pair planning Group 3: Group planning Group 4: Teacher-led planning Group 5: No planning (oral debate & writing) Group 6: No planning (writing only)

4.6. Measures Accuracy measures Complexity measures percentage of error-free clauses number of errors per 100 words Errors: in syntax, morphology, and lexical choice Clause: a) a simple independent finite clause, or b) a dependent finite or non-finite clause. Complexity measures number of clauses per c-unit (communication unit) number of words per c-unit c-unit: a) one simple independent finite clause, or b) an independent finite clause + one or more dependent clauses (finite or non-finite).

4.6. Measures Fluency measures phrases or clauses that were repeated with some modification either to syntax, morphology, or word order utterances that were abandoned before completion immediate and verbatim repetition of a word or phrase lexical items that are immediately substituted for another Fluency measures general fluency: number of words the number of c-units breakdown fluency number of pauses total pausing time repair fluency number of repetitions false starts reformulations replacements a break of 1.0 seconds or longer either within a turn or between turns the sum of pauses in each transcript

4.6. Measures Interactiveness measures number of turns number of words per turn ‘Greater interactiveness is associated with more frequent turns and shorter average turn length’ (Foster and Skehan, 1999, p. 230).

4.7. Data analysis Data transcribed and coded: only data from farmer, football star, and teacher only the first 5 minutes of the recorded interaction Data from one participant who had contributed fewer than 8 c-units was discarded. Inter-coder reliabilities 10% of the data double coded Pearson’s correlation coefficients: c-units (r = .976), error-free clauses (r = .929) repetition (r = .978)

5. Results 5.1. Descriptive statistics

large SD (relative to the mean) (similar to Foster & Skehan, 1999) Table 4. Basic descriptive statistics for oral production standardized and expressed per 100 words Errors per 100 words presenting much larger SD (relative to the mean) than percentage of error-free clauses

5. Results 5.2. Underlying constructs Factor analysis to find out whether the measures in these three sets of variables (fluency, accuracy, and complexity) are related to one another and whether they really represent three distinct factors. interactiveness measures also included to see whether they measure a distinct aspect of language performance

Four factors explain cumulatively 73.99% of the variance Table 5. Results from the factor analysis complexity speech accuracy repair fluency breakdown fluency general fluency Four factors explain cumulatively 73.99% of the variance interactiveness

complexity repair fluency interactiveness Table 5. Results from the factor analysis complexity repair fluency interactiveness

5. Results 5.3. Source of planning One-way ANOVAs to explore whether any of the independent variables (solitary planning, pair planning, group planning, teacher-led planning, no planning) generated significant results.

(teacher-led planning) Table 6. Results from the ANOVAs on the planning variable Group 1 (solitary planning) Group 4 (teacher-led planning) general fluency interactiveness

Table 7. Descriptive statistics on three measures

6.1. Discussion: Source of planning Results with significant planning effects Measures: number of c-units (general fluency) number of turns (interactiveness) error-free clauses (accuracy, approaching significance) Locations: All between solitary planning and teacher-led planning

6.1. Discussion: Source of planning Each condition may be characterized: Solitary planners: less interactive; less fluent, and less accurate Pair planners and group planners perform more or less the same. Teacher-led planners: more interactive; more fluent, and more accurate Non-planners: less accurate and less fluent (similar to solitary planners) but more interactive than solitary planners

6.1. Discussion: Source of planning A clear role for the teacher in pre-task work. 73.39% error-free clauses channelling attention to a focus on form, not a focus on forms (Long and Crookes, 1992; Long and Robinson, 1998) ‘If you threw me out, many people might…’ repeated in examples, but not explicitly taught or noted More interactive performance a warm-up for the oral debate more ready to speak up with not enough chances to speak during teacher-dominated planning

6.1. Discussion: Source of planning Trade-off effects: complexity vs. both fluency and accuracy (not either fluency or accuracy) Solitary planners less accurate and less fluent most complex (descriptive statistics as in Table 8) Teacher-led planners more fluent and more accurate least complex (descriptive statistics as in Table 8) Possibly due to participants’ low proficiency level

Table 8. Descriptive statistics on complexity measures

6.2. Discussion: Pre-task planning Seemingly conflicting results: Planning effects: Significant differences: solitary vs. teacher-led No planning effects: No significant differences: planners vs. non-planners Combinations of results: pre-task planning did have effects but differed on different measures, and in different conditions of sources of planning.

6.2. Discussion: Measuring beginners’ L2 oral discourse Measuring beginners’ L2 oral production: ‘problematic’ (Ellis, 2003, p.115) Factor analysis in the present study: Mixed and sharing two factors: Measures of complexity, interactiveness, breakdown fluency, and general fluency Contributing almost the same to both factors: Complexity measures Factor analysis in Mehnert (1998): Complexity measures: single factor, only high loadings Subjects: L2-German, intermediate level adult learners

6.3. Implications Pedagogic implication: a clear role for the teacher in the pre-task work Implications for pre-task planning research: Trade-off between complexity and the other two aspects (fluency and accuracy) confirming the competition making the picture more complicated Interactiveness, complexity, breakdown fluency, and general fluency did not clearly differentiate Contrast to Skehan’s (1996a, 1996b, 1998) distinction

7. Conclusions Effects of pre-task planning found but differed on different measures, and in different conditions of sources of planning Teacher-led planning vs. Solitary planning fluency, accuracy, and interactiveness complexity A trade-off between complexity and the other two aspects, i.e., fluency and accuracy Complex nature of beginner proficiency learners’ L2 oral discourse

Thank you! The research reported here is part of my dissertation work in the University of Leeds. I thank all my tutors who contributed to my success of study, particularly my supervisor Dr. Wenxin Wang. All remaining mistakes are my own. Address correspondence to Ronggan Zhang, the Affiliated High School of South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510630, P.R. China; email: r.zhang03@members.leeds.ac.uk.