Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T15:03:23.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Pauline Foster
Affiliation:
Thames Valley University
Peter Skehan
Affiliation:
Thames Valley University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study focuses on the impact of different variables on the nature of language performance in the context of task-based instruction. Characteristics of tasks are discussed, and then a framework is offered that can organize the nature of task-based instruction and relevant research. The framework is used to generate predictions regarding the effects of three different tasks (Personal Information Exchange, Narrative, and Decision-Making) and three different implementation conditions for each task (unplanned, planned but without detail, detailed planning) on the variables of fluency, complexity, and accuracy. The study reports strong effects of planning on fluency and clear effects also on complexity, with a linear relationship between degree of planning and degree of complexity. However, a more complex relationship was discovered between planning and accuracy, with the most accurate performance produced by the less detailed planners. In addition, interactions were found between task type and planning conditions, such that the effects of planning were greater with the Narrative and Decision-Making tasks than with the Personal Information Exchange task. The results are discussed in terms of an attentional model of learning and performance and highlight the importance of tradeoff effects between the goals of complexity and accuracy in the context of the use of limited capacity attentional resources. The study contributes to the development of cognitive models of second language performance and addresses a number of pedagogic issues.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

References

REFERENCES

Alvarez-Ossario, L. (1996). The effect of planning in L2 Spanish narratives. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128143.Google Scholar
Brock, C. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 4759.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shilcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In Candlin, C. & Murphy, D. (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 522). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367383.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study on SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431469.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 147181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1220.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1994). Discoursal outcomes of small-group work in an EFL classroom. (Working Papers in English Language Teaching No. 2). London: Thames Valley University.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The effects on accuracy and complexity of planning and mid-task manipulation. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching, 2nd ed.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harrison, A. (1986). Assessing text in action. In Portal, M. (Ed.), Innovations in language testing (pp. 7296). Windsor, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. (1966). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43, 732739.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interaction. University of Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 8(20), 126.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 2755.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 954). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Norusis, M. (1990). SPSS PC user's manual, Version 4. Chicago: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In Gass, S. & Crookes, G. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 934). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Plough, I., & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 3556). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rivers, W. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283331.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., Ting, S. C.-C., & Urwin, J. J. (1995). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC Journal, 26, 6279.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 1746.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness: In search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 1126.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1992). Strategies in second language acquisition. (Working Papers in English Language Teaching No. 1). London: Thames Valley University.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 3862.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1996). The influence of post-task activities and planning on task-based performance. (Working Papers in English Language Teaching No. 3). London: Thames Valley University.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373403.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287301.Google Scholar
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1988). Collins COBUILD English Course: Book 1. London: Collins.Google Scholar