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

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

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.

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