Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio

Collaborative and individual strategic planning effect on performance of an oral task

Collaborative and individual strategic planning effect on performance of an oral task



Abrir | Descargar

Cómo citar
Rafael. (2017). Collaborative and individual strategic planning effect on performance of an oral task. Avances En Educación Y Humanidades, 2(2), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.21897/25394185.1484

Dimensions
PlumX

Resumen

Este artículo reporta los hallazgos iniciales de un estudio de maestría en Lingüística Aplicada sobre el efecto que el planeamiento estratégico, colaborativo e individual tiene en el desempeño de una tarea oral en jóvenes estudiantes del inglés como L2 en Brasil. EL planeamiento estratégico (Ellis, 2003, 2005) es un concepto importante dentro del enfoque basado en tareas (TBA), ya que esta condición puede desencadenar procesos meta-cognitivos. Sin embargo, pocos estudios han tenido jóvenes estudiantes de inglés como participantes en la investigación de planeamiento estratégico. Los participantes, estudiantes adolescentes, inscritos en el segundo año de una escuela secundaria pública en Florianópolis (Brasil), realizaron dos tareas mono-lógicas orales bajo dos condiciones de planeación diferentes: (a) colaborativo, y (b) individual. Los mensajes orales enviados usando WhatsApp se analizaron en términos de precisión, fluidez y resultado (pragmático). Además, los participantes completaron cuestionarios después de la realización de cada tarea, con el objetivo de revelar su percepción sobre las condiciones y tareas. En este trabajo, se analizaron los datos del estudio piloto, además de algunos resultados preliminares. A pesar de la ausencia de resultados estadísticamente significativos para la exactitud y fluidez, los resultados indicaron una tendencia que respalda la condición de trabajo colaborativo. Si bien, los datos cualitativos mostraron un fuerte apoyo para la condición de planeamiento colaborativo. Estos hallazgos iniciales, en general, apoyan el uso de tareas orales L2 que involucran el planeamiento estratégico en el contexto de la escuela pública.

Palabras claves: Trabajo colaborativo, planeación estratégica, pre-tareas, tarea oral en segunda lengua; WhatsApp, colegio público.

 

Abstract

This article reports the initial findings of an MA in Applied Linguistics on the effect collaborative and individual strategic planning have on performance of an oral task by young learners of English as an L2 in Brazil. Strategic planning (Ellis, 2003, 2005) is an important concept within the task-based approach (TBA), as this condition may trigger metacognitive processes.Yet, only a few studies have had young learners of English as participants in strategic planning research. The participants, teenage learners,enrolled in the second year of a public high school in Florianópolis (Brazil), performed two monological oral tasks under two different planning conditions: (a) collaborative, and (b) individual. The oral messages sent using WhatsApp were analysed in terms of accuracy, fluency and outcome (pragmatic). In addition, the participants filled in post-task questionnaires after the performance of each task, aiming at unveiling their perception on the conditions and tasks. In this paper, data from the pilot study as well as some preliminary results were analysed. In spite of the absence of statistically significant results for accuracy and fluency, results indicated a trend supporting the collaborative work condition. While, the qualitative data showed strong support for the collaborative planning condition. These initial findings, in general, support the use of L2 oral tasks involving strategic planning in the public school context.

Keywords: Collaborative work, strategic planning; pre-task, L2 oral task; WhatsApp, public school.


Visitas del artículo 1058 | Visitas PDF


Descargas

Los datos de descarga todavía no están disponibles.
  1. Ahmadian, M.J., García Mayo, M. P. (2018) Introduction. In: Ahmadian, M.J., García Mayo, M.
  2. P (eds.) 2018. Recent Perspectives on Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Berlin,
  3. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved 13 Aug. 2018, fromhttps://www.degruyter.com/view/
  4. product/462793.
  5. Bailer, C., Tomitch, L., D’Ely, R.C.S. (2011) Planejamento como um processo dinâmico: a importância
  6. do estudo piloto para uma pesquisa experimental em linguística aplicada. Intercâmbio. Revista
  7. do Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Linguística Aplicada e Estudos da Linguagem. v.
  8. , 129-146. ISSN 2237-759x.
  9. Batstone, R. Language form, task-based language teaching, and the classroom context. ELT Journal.
  10. (4), 459-467. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccs058
  11. Beniss, A. and Bazzaz, V. (2014). The impact of pushed output on accuracy and fluency of Iranian
  12. EFL learners’ speaking. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research. v.2(2), 51-72.
  13. Bygate, M. (2001b). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In: Bygate,
  14. M., Skehan, P.,Swain, M. (org.). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning,
  15. teaching,and testing, London: Longman.
  16. D’Ely, R.C.S.F. (2006). A focus on learners’ metacognitive processes: the impact of strategic
  17. planning, repetition, strategic planning plus repetition, and strategic planning for repetition
  18. on L2 oral performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidade Federal de Santa
  19. Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  20. Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed
  21. methodologies. UK: Oxford University Press.
  22. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed Second Language Acquisition: a Literature Review. Auckland UniServices
  24. Limited. Auckland: New Zealand.
  25. Farias, P. (2014). Task-Test: what lies beyond implementing a task-based assessment? Comparing
  26. learners’ performance and unveiling learners’ perception in a testing situation (Unpublished
  27. undergraduate dissertation). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  28. Foster, P. &Skehan, P. (1996). The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language
  29. Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323. doi: 10.1017/
  30. S0272263100015047
  31. Foster, P. Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring Spoken Language: A Unit for All
  32. Reasons. Applied Linguistics, v. 21, 354-75. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
  33. Guará-Tavares, M. G. (2009). The relationship among pre-task planning, working memory capacity
  34. and L2 speech performance: a pilot study. Linguagem& Ensino (UCPel), v. 12, 165-194.
  35. Guará-Tavares, M. da G. (2016). Learners’ processes during pre-task planning and Working Memory
  36. Capacity. Ilha do Desterro, v.69 (1), 79-94. doi: 10.5007/2175-8026.2016v69n1p79.
  37. Haizhen, W. Fangqi, S. (2015). Effects of strategic planning time on L2 paired oral test performance.
  38. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Quarterly). v. 38 (3), 263-276.
  39. Hyde, M. (1993) Pair work – A Blessing or a Curse?: An Analysis of pair work from pedagogical,
  40. cultural, social and psychological perspectives. System, 21 (3), 343-348.
  41. Kormos, J. Préfontaine, Y. (2016) Affective factors influencing fluent performance: French learners
  42. appraisals of second language speech tasks. Language Teaching Research, v. 21 (6), 699-716.
  43. doi:10.1177/1362168816683562
  44. Kowal, M. Swain, M. (1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’
  45. language awareness. Language Awareness. v.3 (2), 73-93.
  46. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  47. Li, L., Chen, J. & Sun, L. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pre task planning time on L2
  48. learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, v. 49 (1) 38-66.
  49. Lynch T. and Maclean J. (2001). “A case of exercising”: effects of immediate task repetition on
  50. learners’ performance’. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds.) Researching Pedagogic
  51. Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Addison Wesley Longman. 141-162.
  52. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, K.
  53. Ginsberg, R.Kramsch, C. (Eds.). Foreign language research in crosscultural perspective. 39-
  54. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
  55. Long, M.H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R.L. Lambert and E. Shohamy
  56. (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy (179-192). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  57. Mackey, A. &Gass, S. (2005). Common data collection measures. In: Mackey, A. &Gass, S. Second
  58. Language Research: methodology and design. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 43-99.
  59. Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language
  60. performance. Studies on second Language Acquisition, 20, 83-108.
  61. Michel, M. (2017) Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in L2 Production. In: Loewen, S., Sato, M.
  62. The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge,
  63. -68.
  64. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language
  65. Acquisition.
  66. Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pretask planning.Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  67. Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed Second Language Acquisition: a Literature Review. Auckland UniServices
  68. Limited. Auckland: New Zealand.
  69. Farias, P. (2014). Task-Test: what lies beyond implementing a task-based assessment? Comparing
  70. learners’ performance and unveiling learners’ perception in a testing situation (Unpublished
  71. undergraduate dissertation). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  72. Foster, P. &Skehan, P. (1996). The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language
  73. Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323. doi: 10.1017/
  74. S0272263100015047
  75. Foster, P. Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring Spoken Language: A Unit for All
  76. Reasons. Applied Linguistics, v. 21, 354-75. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
  77. Guará-Tavares, M. G. (2009). The relationship among pre-task planning, working memory capacity
  78. and L2 speech performance: a pilot study. Linguagem& Ensino (UCPel), v. 12, 165-194.
  79. Guará-Tavares, M. da G. (2016). Learners’ processes during pre-task planning and Working Memory
  80. Capacity. Ilha do Desterro, v.69 (1), 79-94. doi: 10.5007/2175-8026.2016v69n1p79.
  81. Haizhen, W. Fangqi, S. (2015). Effects of strategic planning time on L2 paired oral test performance.
  82. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Quarterly). v. 38 (3), 263-276.
  83. Hyde, M. (1993) Pair work – A Blessing or a Curse?: An Analysis of pair work from pedagogical,
  84. cultural, social and psychological perspectives. System, 21 (3), 343-348.
  85. Kormos, J. Préfontaine, Y. (2016) Affective factors influencing fluent performance: French learners
  86. appraisals of second language speech tasks. Language Teaching Research, v. 21 (6), 699-716.
  87. doi:10.1177/1362168816683562
  88. Kowal, M. Swain, M. (1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’
  89. language awareness. Language Awareness. v.3 (2), 73-93.
  90. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  91. Li, L., Chen, J. & Sun, L. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pre task planning time on L2
  92. learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, v. 49 (1) 38-66.
  93. Lynch T. and Maclean J. (2001). “A case of exercising”: effects of immediate task repetition on
  94. learners’ performance’. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds.) Researching Pedagogic
  95. Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Addison Wesley Longman. 141-162.
  96. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, K.
  97. Ginsberg, R.Kramsch, C. (Eds.). Foreign language research in crosscultural perspective. 39-
  98. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
  99. Long, M.H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R.L. Lambert and E. Shohamy
  100. (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy (179-192). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  101. Mackey, A. &Gass, S. (2005). Common data collection measures. In: Mackey, A. &Gass, S. Second
  102. Language Research: methodology and design. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 43-99.
  103. Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language
  104. performance. Studies on second Language Acquisition, 20, 83-108.
  105. Michel, M. (2017) Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in L2 Production. In: Loewen, S., Sato, M.
  106. The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge,
  107. -68.
  108. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language
  109. Acquisition.
  110. Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pretask planning.
  111. In: Ellis, R (Eds.), Planning and task performance in a second language (77-110). Amsterdam
  112. and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  113. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, v. 30
  114. (4), 590-601. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp045
  115. Pang, F. Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behavior and second language performance in
  116. narrative retelling. In: Skehan, P. (Eds.). Processing Perspectives on Task Performance, 95-
  117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  118. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In: Robinson, P. (Eds.). Cognition and second language instruction.
  119. (3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  120. Skehan, P. (1996). A Framework for the Implementation of Task-based Instruction. Applied Linguistics.
  121. (1), 38–62. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.1.38.
  122. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  123. Skehan, P. Xiaoyue, B. Qian, L. Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to
  124. task-based performance. Language Teaching Research. v. 16, 170-187.
  125. Specht, A. (2014). The impact of strategic planning instruction on learner’s accurate oral performance
  126. of English as a foreign language. (Unpublished Masters dissertation). Universidade Federal de
  127. Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  128. Storch, N. (2002). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning.
  129. International Journal of Educational Research. v. 37, 305–322.
  130. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some roles of Comprehensible Input and
  131. Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Gass& C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
  132. language acquisition (235–253), Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  133. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative
  134. dialogue. In JP Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. (97-114).
  135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  136. Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The
  137. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58 (1), 44-63.
  138. Swain, M. Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
  139. immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
  140. Tavakoli, P., Foster, P. (2011), Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative
  141. Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 61, 37-72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x
  142. Xhafaj, D. C. P.,Muck, K.E., D’Ely, R.C.S.F. (2011). The impact of individual and peer planning
  143. on the oral performance of advanced learners of English as a foreign language. Linguagem&
  144. Ensino, v. 14, 39-65.
  145. Xhafaj, D. C. P. (2013). One is good, two is better: Investigating the impact of peer-planning in the oral
  146. performance of intermediate L2 English learners. (Unpublished undergraduate dissertation).
  147. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  148. Zaccaron, R., D’Ely, R.C.S.F., Xhafaj, D.C.P. (2018). Estudo piloto: um processo importante de
  149. adaptação e refinamento para uma pesquisa quase experimental em aquisição de l2. Revista do
  150. GELNE, v. 20 (1). doi:10.21680/1517-7874.2018v20n1ID13201In: Ellis, R (Eds.), Planning and task performance in a second language (77-110). Amsterdam
  151. and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  152. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, v. 30
  153. (4), 590-601. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp045
  154. Pang, F. Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behavior and second language performance in
  155. narrative retelling. In: Skehan, P. (Eds.). Processing Perspectives on Task Performance, 95-
  156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  157. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In: Robinson, P. (Eds.). Cognition and second language instruction.
  158. (3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  159. Skehan, P. (1996). A Framework for the Implementation of Task-based Instruction. Applied Linguistics.
  160. (1), 38–62. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.1.38.
  161. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  162. Skehan, P. Xiaoyue, B. Qian, L. Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to
  163. task-based performance. Language Teaching Research. v. 16, 170-187.
  164. Specht, A. (2014). The impact of strategic planning instruction on learner’s accurate oral performance
  165. of English as a foreign language. (Unpublished Masters dissertation). Universidade Federal de
  166. Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  167. Storch, N. (2002). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning.
  168. International Journal of Educational Research. v. 37, 305–322.
  169. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some roles of Comprehensible Input and
  170. Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Gass& C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
  171. language acquisition (235–253), Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  172. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative
  173. dialogue. In JP Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. (97-114).
  174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  175. Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The
  176. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58 (1), 44-63.
  177. Swain, M. Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
  178. immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
  179. Tavakoli, P., Foster, P. (2011), Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative
  180. Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 61, 37-72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x
  181. Xhafaj, D. C. P.,Muck, K.E., D’Ely, R.C.S.F. (2011). The impact of individual and peer planning
  182. on the oral performance of advanced learners of English as a foreign language. Linguagem&
  183. Ensino, v. 14, 39-65.
  184. Xhafaj, D. C. P. (2013). One is good, two is better: Investigating the impact of peer-planning in the oral
  185. performance of intermediate L2 English learners. (Unpublished undergraduate dissertation).
  186. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  187. Zaccaron, R., D’Ely, R.C.S.F., Xhafaj, D.C.P. (2018). Estudo piloto: um processo importante de
  188. adaptação e refinamento para uma pesquisa quase experimental em aquisição de l2. Revista do
  189. GELNE, v. 20 (1). doi:10.21680/1517-7874.2018v20n1ID13201

Sistema OJS 3.4.0.3 - Metabiblioteca |