2. 0 The influence of strategic task based planning on the fluency, accuracy and complexity of speech in two L2s. Siska Van Daele, Alex Housen & Michel Pierrard ACQUILANG ( Centre for Studies on Second Language Learning & Teaching ) TBLT 2, Hawai’i

3. .  Exploratory longitudinal study of the Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency (CAF) of the L2 speech produced by Dutch-speaking adolescents learning French and English as FLs (and by native speakers of French and English). BACKGROUND

4. .  Describe the development of productive oral proficiency in two L2s in terms of Complexity (C), Accuracy (A) and Fluency (F) and the factors that influence the manifestation of CAF.  Formulate construct definitions and operational definitions of Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency as basic dimensions of L2 proficiency.  Information processing theories and psycholinguistic models of speech production (e.g. Anderson 1993; Bialystok 2001; De Bot 1992; Ellis 1994, 2004; Levelt 1989; 1999; MacLaughlin & Heredia 1996; Robinson 1995, 2003; Skehan 1998). AIMS

5. . C-A-F in L2 is influenced by: 1. Cognitive & Psycholinguistic factors:  working memory capacity  attention 2. Psychological factors:  Affective factors (eg. attitudes, motivations…)  Personality factors (eg. extraversion, degree of foreign language anxiety…) 3. Contextual factors:  amount and type of contact with L2  task type and planning conditions

6. . THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK L2 CONSTRAINTS:  limited lexicon  limited processing capacity PLANNING:  types:  (strategic) pre-task aids F & C  within-task aids C & A (Levelt, 1989)  increases processing capacity

7. . THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK PREVIOUS RESEACH:  positive results for fluency & complexity ( Crookes, 1989; Foster, 1996; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan & Foster 1997; Wendel, 1997 and Yuan & Ellis, 2003).  no (Crookes, 1989; Wendel, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) or mixed results (Foster, 1996; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan & Foster1997) for accuracy. DUE TO:  unintentional within-task planning (Yuan & Ellis, 2003).  length of preparation time (Mehnert, 1998).  learner strategies (Ortega, 2005).  type of planning (guided/non guided), task (narrative, decision making…) ( Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Sanguran, 2005).  proficiency level (Kawauchi, 2005, Ortega, 1995, 1999, 2005).  language typology

8. . DESCRIPTIVE QUESTIONS PLANNING: 1. a. Does unguided strategic pre-task planning have an effect on the fluency, accuracy and complexity of intermediate English-FL learners? b. Does unguided strategic pre-task planning have an effect on the fluency, accuracy and complexity of THE SAME intermediate French-FL learners? 2.Are the effects of unguided strategic pre-task planning similar or different for both target languages? RESEARCH QUESTIONS

9. . PARTICIPANTS:  L2 learners:  40 Dutch-speaking adolescent learners (aged 14-16) of EFL and FFL in secondary education in Flanders. DESIGN (cross-sectional and cross-linguistic): METHODOLOGY 20 FFL Strategic pre-task planning (SP) 20 EFL 20 FFL No planning time (NP) 20 EFL

10. .  L2-French (= other national language):  Starts at age 8-9 (Year 3)  Taught for 3-5 hrs a week (till Year 12)  ± 360 hrs classroom contact at start of study (Year 9)  L3-English:  Starts at age 12-13 (Year 7)  Taught for 2-4 hrs a week (till Year 12)  ±180 hrs classroom contact at start of study  similar curricula + same (expected) levels of FL- achievement for FFL and EFL (in Years 9-11) Foreign Language Teaching and Learning in Flanders:

11. . MATERIALS & DATA:  Oral retell-task: 3 versions of a 60-frame wordless picture story: Monsieur O (L. Trondheim): variations on a similar general plot line, same protagonist and contextualization but different secondary characters. METHODOLOGY

12. . MATERIALS & DATA:  Task conditions: participants told the story with and without pre-task planning time (5. min - 0 min.) and under time pressure (max. 5 min).  Oral speech data: recorded and transcribed and analyzed in CHAT-format.  Statistical analysis: three-way random effect ANOVA’s. METHODOLOGY

13. . C-A-F MEASURES  COMPLEXITY:  Lexical Diversity: Guiraud’s Index (e.g. Vermeer, 2000).  Syntactic Complexity: Subclause ratio (Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki & Kim, 1998).  ACCURACY:  Lexical Accuracy: lexical errors per clause  Grammatical Accuracy: morphological + syntactic errors per clause (Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki & Kim, 1998).  FLUENCY:  Speech Rate A & B ((meaningful) syllables per minute) (e.g. Yuan & Ellis, 2003; Ellis & Yuan 2005).

14. . HYPOTHESES 1.EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be characterized by higher fluency rates > (pre-task) conceptualization reduces hesitation/pausing behavior. 2. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be syntactically more complex and lexically more diverse > allocation of attention to message construction in conceptualizer and formulator. 3.EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be grammatically and lexically more accurate > advanced (and intermediate ?) learners can attend to semantic and syntactic encoding AND monitor their output.

15. . HYPOTHESES EXPLORATORY RESEARCH QUESTION: Are the effects of planning influenced by language typology and is this effect independent of other variables such as proficiency level?

16. . RESULTS: FLUENCY Sig. increase in Eng (F 1,38 =6.91, p=0.012) Near-sig. increase in Fr (F 1,38 =3.57, p=0.067) Eng > Fr in both conditions & for both measures (F 1,115 =316.63, p= <0.0001)

17. . RESULTS: COMPLEXITY Sig. increase in IG & SCR in Eng (F 1,38 =4.77, p=0.035) Sig. increase in IG & SCR in Fr (F 1,38 =4.77, p=0.035) Eng > Fr in both conditions & for both measures (F 1,115 =316.63, p= <0.0001)

18. . RESULTS: ACCURACY Sig. decrease in errors in Eng (F 1,38 =8.72, p=0.005) No sig. change in Fr (F 1,38 =0.00, p=0.983) Eng > Fr in both conditions & for both measures (F 1,116 =121.27, p=<0.0001)

19. . SUMMARY & DISCUSSION 1.Does unguided strategic pre-task planning have an effect on the fluency, accuracy and complexity of intermediate English-FL and the same French-FL learners? 2.Are the effects of unguided strategic pre-task planning similar or different for both target languages? ENGLISH-FLFRENCH-FL FLUENCY++ COMPLEXITY LEX++ SYN++ ACCURACY LEX+0 GRAM+0

20. . SUMMARY & DISCUSSION 1. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be characterized by higher fluency rates > (pre-task) conceptualization reduces hesitation/pausing behavior. ENGLISH-FLFRENCH-FL FLUENCY++ COMPLEXITY LEX++ SYN++ ACCURACY LEX+0 GRAM+0

21. . SUMMARY & DISCUSSION 1. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be characterized by higher fluency rates > (pre-task) conceptualization reduces hesitation/pausing behavior. ENGLISH-FLFRENCH-FL FLUENCY++ COMPLEXITY LEX++ SYN++ ACCURACY LEX+0 GRAM+0

22. . SUMMARY & DISCUSSION 2. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be syntactically more complex and lexically more diverse > allocation of attention to message construction in conceptualizer and formulator. ENGLISH-FLFRENCH-FL FLUENCY++ COMPLEXITY LEX++ SYN++ ACCURACY LEX+0 GRAM+0

23. . SUMMARY & DISCUSSION 2. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be syntactically more complex and lexically more diverse > allocation of attention to message construction in conceptualizer and formulator. ENGLISH-FLFRENCH-FL FLUENCY++ COMPLEXITY LEX++ SYN++ ACCURACY LEX+0 GRAM+0

24. . SUMMARY & DISCUSSION 3. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be grammatically and lexically more accurate > advanced (and intermediate ?) learners can attend to syntactic and semantic encoding AND monitor their output. ENGLISH-FLFRENCH-FL FLUENCY++ COMPLEXITY LEX++ SYN++ ACCURACY LEX+0 GRAM+0

25. . SUMMARY & DISCUSSION 3. EFL & FFL speech under the +P condition will be grammatically and lexically more accurate > advanced (and intermediate ?) learners can attend to syntactic and semantic encoding AND monitor their output. ENGLISH-FLFRENCH-FL FLUENCY++ COMPLEXITY LEX++ SYN++ ACCURACY LEX+0 GRAM+0

26. . SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Are the effects of planning influenced by language typology and is this effect independent of other variables such as proficiency level?  Unexpected discrepancy in proficiency levels: typology (???)  BUT: At higher proficiency levels (EFL): gains in accuracy

27. . Limitations & implications for further research  Measurements of CAF as basic dimensions of L2 proficiency:  QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS  more and more fine-grained measures (e.g. repair/breakdown F)  factor analysis > interplay between dimensions (Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005)  OTHER METHODS:  developmental sequences (Bartning & Schlyter, 2004; Pienemann, 2005)  qualitative analysis (e.g. pausing behavior, word difficulty) (Chambers, 1997)  chunks/ formulaic sequences (Stengers, 2006)

28. . Limitations & implications for further research  Crosslinguistic analysis (typology):  proficiency test / pre-test  consider typological differences in phonology / inflectional morph.  Effects of strategic planning  individual variability:  strategies think aloud protocols (Ortega, 1995, 1999)  personality/ affective variables  length of planning and execution (Mehnert, 1998, Ellis & Yuan, 2003)  task type / complexity ( Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005; Robinson et al.,1995)  type of strategic planning: guided >< non guided (Sanguran, 2005)

29. . INFORMATION & FEEDBACK Siska.van.Daele@vub.ac.be Alex.Housen@vub.ac.be Michel.Pierrard@vub.ac.be

30. . REFERENCES Bartning I. & Schlyter S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en françaisL2. Journal of French Language Studies14, 281-299. Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by oral fluency? System 25, 535-544. Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 367-383. Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, (pp. 37-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In J.Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. London: Heineman. Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and focus of planning on task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(3), 299-324. Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed), Planning and TaskPerformance in a Second Language, (pp. 37-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mehnert, U. (1998). Length of Planning Time and L2 Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 109-122. Ortega, L. (1995). The effects of planning in L2 Spanish narratives. Research Note 15. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 109-148. Ortega, L. (2005). Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed),Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, (pp. 37-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

31. . REFERENCES Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory, (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sanguran, J. (2005). The effects of focussing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R.Ellis (Ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, (pp.111–141). Amsterdam:John Benjamins. Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1, 185-211. Stenger, H., Housen, A., Boers, F. & Eyckmans, J. (forthcoming). The effectiveness of a phrase-learning approach on fluency, complexity and accuracy in and beyond the EFL classroom. Robinson, P., Ting, S. & Unwin, J. (1996). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC Journal 26, 62- 79. Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, (pp. 239-273). Philadelphia:John Benjamins. Trondheim, L. (2002). Monsieur O. Paris: Delcourt. Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing 17 (1), 65-83. Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished PhD thesis. Temple University, Japan. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Hae-Young, K. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 24, 1-27.