1. 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

2. Overview Introduction Research questions Pre-task planning Methodology
Discussion
Conclusion

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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?

9. 3.2. Options for pre-task planning
Table 1. Foster and Skehan’s (1999) options for pre-task planning

10. 3.3. Source of planning Working definition
not explicitly defined in Foster and Skehan (1999)
similar to Ellis’s (2003, pp ) 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)

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 4.4. Planning conditions
Table 3. Operationalization of options of pre-task planning

16. 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)

17. 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).

18. 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

19. 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).

20. 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)

21. 5. Results
5.1. Descriptive statistics

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

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

26. 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.

27. (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

28. Table 7. Descriptive statistics on three measures

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. Table 8. Descriptive statistics on complexity measures

34. 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.

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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, , P.R. China;