1. Planning, recasts and learning of L2 morphology Natalia Romanova University of Maryland romanova@umd.edu This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create action items. Use PowerPoint to keep track of these action items during your presentation In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button Select Meeting Minder Select the Action Items tab Type in action items as they come up Click OK to dismiss this box This will automatically create an Action Item slide at the end of your presentation with your points entered.

2. Focus L2 learning Task Complexity (+/-planning) Focus on Form (Recast) ? ? ? +

3. Motivation much research of the effects of recasts on interlanguage development (Long, 2007) much research of task complexity variables on learners production (Ellis, 2003) much research on the effect of planning time on learners production (Ellis, 1987; 2003; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Wendel, 1997; Yuan and Ellis, 2003) but –pre-task planning was typically conflated with online planning little research of effectiveness of recasts in relation to task complexity (Revesz and Han, 2006; Revesz, 2006; 2009)

4. Goals of the study explores the relationship between task complexity and L2 learning to explore the effects of type of planning on L2 morphological development isolates planning time available before and during task performance as an independent variable seeks to determine whether the availability of planning time and type of planning may –enhance the salience of corrective feedback, –promote the noticing of recasts and –facilitate acquisition of complex morphosyntactic forms.

5. Recasts: impact gaps between their interlanguage and target language forms facilitation of form-function mapping destabilization and consequent restructuring of the IL grammar

6. Recasts: factors of effectiveness Research to date suggests that recasts can facilitate L2 development, but their efficacy is a function of several internal and external variables. learners internal factors L1 level of L2 proficiency age working memory capacity developmental readiness external factors type of linguistic features context task variables

7. Planning and language production pre-task planning odirected at the conceptualization stage online planning oengages both conceptualizing and careful formulation omonitoring rapid planning olimited processing time oLTM is accessed mainly for lexical material

8. Task characteristics: attention Models of attention Single resource, limited capacity model (Skehan, 1998; Skehan and Foster, 2001) Multiple resources model (Cognition Hypothesis) (Robinson, 2001; 2003; 2005; 2007) Resource-directing, language development dimensions Resource-depleting, language deployment dimensions

9. Predictions regarding L2 accuracy frees attentional resources that can be devoted to language form frees attention and directs it to particular aspects of the language Single resource model:Multiple resources model: + planning time - planning time depletes attentional resources that can be devoted to L2 form depletes attention and disperses it over non-specific areas of L2 Single resource model:Multiple resources model: Promotes accuracy Degrades accuracy

10. Predictions regarding recasts Single resource model less complex tasks encourage focus on form, and may lead to noticing, uptake and retention of input made salient by recasts Cognition Hypothesis more complex tasks along resource-dispersing dimensions will facilitate automatization of, and real-time access to, an already established and developing IL system more complex tasks along resource-directing dimensions will direct learners attention to language analysis which will eventually lead to the development of new L2 form-function mappings more complex tasks may prompt learners to look for more and more help in the input, attending to facilitative forms made salient by recasts more complex tasks along resource-directing, and in general, too, along resource dispersing dimensions promote noticing, uptake and retention of input made salient by recasts.

11. Studies exploring the effect of task complexity on L2 learning Revesz (2007; 2009): examined how the task variable +/ contextual support combined with recasting affects L2 morphosyntactic development. Learners who received recasts but were not receiving contextual support outperformed learners who received both recasts and contextual support. Nuevo (2006): did not detect an effect for task complexity; focused on a resource-directing dimension

12. Research Questions 1.Does the availability of planning time before or during the task have a differential effect on the acquisition of morphological forms made salient in the input by recasts? A. Do learners who are exposed to focused recasts on their L2 output in the pre-task planning (PP) condition show greater short-term L2 development than learners who are exposed to recasts in the no planning (NP) condition? B. Do learners who are exposed to focused recasts on their L2 output during online task planning (OP condition) show greater short-term L2 development than learners who do not have an opportunity for online planning (NP condition)? 2. Does type of planning (when planning takes place) have a differential effect on the acquisition of morphological forms made salient in the input by recasts? Do learners who are exposed to focused recasts on their L2 output during online planning (OP) condition and learners who engage in pre-task planning (PP) condition show similar short-term L2 development?

13. Hypotheses 1. A. The PP group will show greater improvement than the NP group. B. The OP group will show greater improvement than the NP group. 2. The OP group will show greater improvement than the PP group.

14. Design Pre-test-posttest-delayed posttest design 2 (time: pre-test, post-test) x 3 (planning type: pre-task, online, no planning) factorial repeated measures ANOVA –time as a within-subjects factor and type of planning as a between-subject factor –DV: learners accuracy of the target forms Treatment: recasts of deviant verb forms during online story-telling task. DV: accuracy in the use the target form.

15. Participants 3 groups –PP group (N=13) –OP group (N=13) –NP group (N=13) Homogeneous language background oNative speakers of English oMean age: 21.2 oF=23, M=16 oTwo-five semesters of Russian oSimilar instructional background o(the same two-volume, introductory Russian-language textbook Golosa) oNo study abroad experience oNo or minimal exposure to Russian outside the classroom oDevelopmentally ready Random assignment to conditions to control for possible covariates

16. Target form Russian: 3d person singular form of the present tense verbs of the unproductive –a- class olow perceptual salience olow frequency omorphologically complex (it has an automatic truncation at the juncture of the stem and the ending, mutation of the root-final consonant and a stress shift) ohas no communicative value oInvolves learning a probabilistic rule, or concrete co- occurrence patterns which favors implicit learning as opposed to learning abstract categorical rules that seem to be best learned explicitly (DeKeyser, 1998) ois difficult to acquire solely from exposure to input (Long and Robinson, 1998): otypical errors are the use of a different conjugation pattern in place of –a- pattern, errors in consonant mutation, missing mutation or incorrect mutation (Gor and Chernigovskaya, 2003; 2004; Gor, 2007; Romanova, 2004; 2008).

17. Target form piS-a+ et = pisAu = piSHet piSa+ t Infinitive3rd person, singular, Present

18. Data collection Orally About 60 minutes per participant –Language background questionnaire –Language proficiency test –Pre-test: answer the questions task and picture description task –Treatment session: picture description task –Exit questionnaire (what they planned, focused on and noticed) –Post-test given immediately after the treatment, –Delayed post-test two weeks later (N=22).

19. Stimuli Real verbs: 12 Nonce verbs: 24 (12 X2) created by manipulating one or two initial consonants. Each set has verbs representing 3 mutation types: –4 verbs with root final –t-, –4 verbs with root final –к-, both mutating to –ch-, and –4 verbs with root final bilabial –b-, -p-,-m- that add –l-. Examples: xnykat – (on) xnych+et, dremat – (on) drem+l+et. Paired real and nonce verbs were not used in the same task, The same real verbs were not used in the same test, and The same nonce verbs were not used in the pre- and post- tests.

20. Pre-/post-tests A story narrative task two sets of 12 pictures 6 real verbs (different for each set) and 6 distracters provided with the pictures. An answer-the-questions task two lists of 36 questions counterbalanced across the tests 12 questions require the use of the target verbs (6 real verbs and 6 nonce verbs), and 24 distracters require the use of nouns in oblique cases, adjectives and adverbs. The order of the tasks is counterbalanced across the participants.

21. Answer the questions task Please give short one-word responses (if appropriate) to the following questions. Examples: Q: Наташа любит чипАть. Что она сейчас делает? A: ЧипАет. Q: Андрей хочет смотреть телевизор. Что он сейчас делает? A: Смотрит телевизор. Q: В магазин привезли компьютеры. Где сейчас компьютеры? A: В магазине.

22. Picture description task

23. Treatment task 24 pictures, 24 words/expressions, 12 target real verbs Planning conditions NP condition: no pre-task planning 20 sec. to describe each picture PP condition: 5-10 minutes of pre-task planning 20 sec. to describe each picture OP condition: no pre-task planning no time pressure to describe each picture

24. Method – treatment task

25. Data coding and analysis 1 point for the correct use of the verb form (-a- class conjugational pattern + correct mutation) and 0 points for an incorrect use of the –a- class pattern (including incorrect mutation). Analysis of interlanguage development: all instances of attempted use of the –a- class pattern were counted.

26. Treatment 2 number of correct forms during treatment *accuracy score at the immediate posttest (r=.684, p=0.00), number of attempted forms during treatment * number of attempted forms at the posttest (r=.422, p=0.01).

27. 2

28. Results accuracy has improved overall from 0.51 to 4.1 there is a difference between how the treatment affected the groups: –a dramatic increase in accuracy on the posttest for the OP and PP groups but not for the NP group. –no difference between the groups on the pretest –a difference between the performance of the NP group and the two planning groups on the posttest.

29. Results The main effect for time in the tests of within-subjects effects: –F(1, 36)=37.028; p=.000, Eta-squared=.507, observed power=1; The effect for time * condition interaction: –F(1, 36)=5.114; p=.011, Eta-squared=.211, observed power=.8 The main effect for planning in the tests of between-subjects effects: –F(1, 36)=3.869, p=.03, Eta-squared=.177, observed power=.663. Pairwise comparisons: OP and NP are significantly different (p=.042) PP and OP and PP and NP difference is not significant performance on the immediate posttest is significantly different from the pretest p<.005)

30. Results 2

31. The main effect for time in the tests of within-subjects effects: –F(1, 18)=15.07; p=.001, Eta-squared=.456, observed power=.956 (pretest-posttest-delayed posttest scores); The effect for time * condition interaction: –F(1, 18)=2.846; p=.083, The main effect for planning in the tests of between-subjects effects: –F(1, 18)=3.2849, p=.060 Pairwise comparisons: OP and NP are significantly different (p=.023) PP and OP or PP and NP are not significantly different performance on both posttests is significantly different from pretest (p=.000 for pretest-immediate posttest comparison) and p=.003 for pretest-delayed posttest comparison) performance on posttest and delayed post test was not significantly different.

32. Interlanguage development – attempted target forms 2 Effects of: time: F(1,36)=36.641, p=.000, Eta squared=.504, power=1 time*condition: F(1, 36)=4.540, p=.017, Eta squared=.201, power=.737

33. Exit questionnaire 2 Focus focus* treatment accuracy: Spearman r=.327 (sig) focus* posttest accuracy: Spearman r=.400 (sig)

34. Exit questionnaire 2 Noticing noticing* modified output: Spearman r =. 365, p=0.02.

35. Exit questionnaire 2 Learning learning * number of correct forms produced during the treatment (Spearman r=.340, p=0.03) and at the posttest (r=.360, p=0.02).

36. Conclusions The availability of planning – regardless of whether it was before or during the task – decreases cognitive load and task complexity, releases attentional resources and predispose learners to monitor the accuracy of production and notice recasts in the input, which leads to the restructuring of IL grammar and facilitates the learning of target forms. The unavailability of planning time depletes the attentional resources, dispersing the attention available, and results in poor learning of morphological forms targeted by recasts.

37. Conclusions These results are in line with the single resource model and contrary to predictions of the Cognition Hypothesis. Online planning that engages both conceptualizing and careful formulation and monitoring may better assist learners in noticing gaps in their L2 knowledge than the availability of pretask planning time directed primarily at conceptualizing.

38. Limitations and next steps No control group No recast group Focus during task performance matters Results may have been modulated by group responses to feedback working memory limitations language proficiency

39. REFERENCES DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 42-63. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. Gor, K. and Chernigovskaya, T. (2003). Generation of complex verbal morphology in first and second language acquisition: Evidence from Russian. Nordlyd. Gor, K. and Chernigovskaya, T. (2004). Formal Instruction and the Mental Lexicon: The Acquisition of Verbal Morphology. In: Current Issues in Instructed Second Language Learning, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin. Gor, K. (2007). Experimental study of first and second language morphological processing. In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S. and M. J. Spivey (eds.), 367–398. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, C. Kramsch and R.Ginsberg (Eds.). Foreign Language Research in a Cross- Cultural Perspective (pp.39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & B. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. Long, M. H. (2007). Recasts: the story thus far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148. Révész, A., & Han, Z. (2006 ). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts Language Awareness, 3, 160 –179. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule- search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (1), 27-68.

40. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: a triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). New York: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-678). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1-32. Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. del Pilar García- Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, pp. 7 – 27. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 161 – 176. Romanova, N. (2004). Verbal morphology processing by Russian heritage speakers: native or non native. OSU Working Papers in Slavic Studies. Ohio State University, 4. Romanova, N. (2008). Mechanisms of Verbal Morphology Processing in Heritage Speakers of Russian. Heritage Language Journal, vol. 6, 1. (http://www.heritagelanguages.org/)http://www.heritagelanguages.org/ Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185-211. Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (2000). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task- based performance, Language Learning. Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Townsend C.E. (1975). Russian word formation. Slavica Publishers. Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24: 1-27.