Planning and Group Discussion Task Performance

Planning and Group Discussion Task Performance

Robert StroudKwansei Gakuin University, Japan

Outline - Why pre-task planning? - Pre-discussion planning design - Group discussion task ‘performance’ - Experiment - Recommendations - Further research

Why pre-task planning? - Short-term memory use to reduce cognitive load with prepared speech(Robinson, 2001; Van Patten, 1990) - Pre-task written planning increases L2 Oral Fluency : Speech rates (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999) - Pre-task written planning increases L2 Complexity: Clauses/t-unit (Wigglesworth, 1997) - Oral task repetition increases CAF (Bygate, 1996, 2001; Bygate & Samuda, 2005; Lynch & McClean, 2000, 2001)

Pre-discussion planning designWe need to consider the…1) Mode: Receptive (listening/reading), Productive (written/spoken) or a Combination2) Focus: Meaning, Form or Both3) Guidance: Structured or Unstructured4) Length: 0-10m or Longer 5) Planning Group Size: Alone, Pairs, Groups (relatively unexplored)6) Planning Group Members: Task group or other members

Group discussion task ‘performance’

-Student participation: ‘speaking up’

- ‘Low’ and ‘High’ participators (based on words spoken/per minute)

-Defining CAF for group discussions

-Interactional measures of performance

The Study

Research questions1. What are the immediate effects of using oral guided strategic (written) planning versus rehearsal (speaking) with low-level Japanese university students for discussion task performance? 2. Are there any significant differences between ‘low and high participators’ (based on average syllables spoken per minute across the three discussions)?

The participants

OVERALL AVERAGE TOEIC SCORE (24

students):

450

Unknown 5 studentsBasic 10-250 1 studentsElementary 255-400 8 studentsElementary Plus

405-600 8 students

Limited Working

605-780 2 students

- First-year Japanese University students (English non-majors)- ‘Elementary Plus’ TOEIC average score (no other scores available)- Split into 12 LOW and 12 HIGH ‘participators’ (based on mean study words/min)- Weekly 90-minute communication classes- 15 week semester

Oral Group Discussions…Topic 7. Choose the best change to be made to the Kobe Sanda Campus (only one): Better access (transportation) Better food facilities More sports facilities More music facilities More laboratories Better car parking facilities New classroom computers for

students A NEW IDEA

• Eight-minutes long

• Fours students• Seven options

given• No teacher

interference

Example…

Rehearsalo Spoken (productive)o Meaning-focused

o 10 minuteso Pairs (partner outside of

task group)

Strategic Planning

o Written (productive)o Meaning/Form-focused

o 10 minuteso Alone

Discussion preparation sheet Name:_____________________________Complete the sections below by yourself. Group: ____________REM EM BER: You cannot read this sheet during the discussion! Class:______________

W rite your plan for the discussion below (IN ENGLISH):W hat is your opinion (write a short sentence)?

How will you explain your choice? Think about reasons and examples. W hen you are finished, write any ideas you have for agreeing/disagreeing with other possible opinions.

(REM EM BER TO USE SHORT SENTENCES AND NOT TO W ORRY ABOUT GRAM M AR OR VOCABULARY TOO M UCH)

Vs

Reported Focus of Strategic planning

During STRATEGIC (written) planning, how much time did you spend doing the following (0-5)?Giving my opinions

Supporting my opinions with

reasons

Agreeing with another opinion

Supporting my agreement with

reasons

Disagreeing with another opinion

Supporting my disagreement with reasons

Not at all 1 2 22 15 21 23For a very short time 8 11 13 13 15 10

For a short time 25 19 19 21 20 18For a while 22 23 9 14 11 16

For a long time 10 11 5 5 1 1For a very long time 2 2 0 0 0 0

MEAN SCORE 2.56 2.53 1.44 1.72 1.35 1.44Standard Deviation 1.04 1.13 1.27 1.23 1.12 1.22

During STRATEGIC (written) planning, how much did you focus on the following (0-5)?Just getting my message across (not worrying about English

mistakes)

Organizing my sentences so that I could speak for a long time

Trying to use correct

vocabulary

Making sure my sentence grammar

was correct

Trying to connect my

sentences with phrases ("Next, I think that…"

etc)

Discussion phrases ( "I see

your point, but…" etc)





During REHEARSAL, how much time did you spend doing the following (0-5)?Giving my opinions

Supporting my opinions with

reasons

Agreeing with another opinion

Supporting my agreement with

reasons

Disagreeing with another opinion

Supporting my disagreement with reasons





During REHEARSAL, how much did you focus on the following (0-5)?Just getting my message across (not worrying about English

mistakes)

Organizing my sentences so that I could speak for a long time

Trying to use correct

vocabulary

Making sure my sentence grammar

was correct

Trying to connect my

sentences with phrases ("Next, I think that…"

etc)

Discussion phrases ( "I see

your point, but…" etc)





Reported Focus of Rehearsal

The procedureWeeks 1-

3• Rehearsal practice

X 2• Strategic practice

X 2

Week 4 Discussion

• Topic 1• No planning

Week 5 Discussion

• Topic 2• Rehearsal

Week 6 Discussion

• Topic 3• Strategic planning

Weeks 1-3

• Rehearsal

practice X 2

• Strategic

practice X 2

Week 4 Discussion


Week 5 Discussion


Week 6 Discussion


Weeks 1-3

• Rehearsal practice

X 2• Strategic practice

X 2

Week 4 Discussion


Week 5 Discussion


Week 6 Discussion


Class A(2

groups)

Class C(2

groups)

Class B(2

groups)

Measuring Discussion ‘Performance’Participation:

Words/minSyllables/minTurns/minuteLinguistic Fluency:Speech Rate A (syllables/min)Speech Rate B (pruned syllables/min)Pauses/min of speechL1 fillers/min of speechRepetitions/min of speechReformulations/min of speech

Linguistic Accuracy:% of error-free clausesErrors/100 words% or correct verb phrasesLinguistic Complexity:Clauses/t-unitWords/t-unitLength of runsDiscourse Complexity:Discourse coherence (Reference clauses/100 words)Turn complexity (Supporting points/turn)

LOW participators

(N=12)

HIGH participators

(N=12)

OVERALL(N=24) (N=24)

95% confidence interval

Measure MEAN SD MEAN SD MEAN SD Mean change t

Sig. (two-

tailed)

lower

upper

eta squared

Effect size

NONE Words / min 6.85 3.29 16.06 4.97 11.46 6.25

STR Words / min 10.51 2.55 16.34 5.03 13.43 4.91 1.97 -

2.127 0.044 -3.89 -0.05 0.16 largeREH Words / min 10.13 3.49 18.55 5.25 14.34 6.13 2.88 -

3.077 0.005 -4.82 -0.94 0.29 largeNONE Syllables / min 8.74 4.02 20.56 6.14 14.65 7.89

STR Syllables / min

13.99 3.49 20.65 7.06 17.32 6.42 2.67 -2.149 0.042 -5.23 -0.10 0.17 large

REH Syllables / min

13.36 4.41 22.79 6.02 18.08 7.06 3.43 -2.75 0.011 -6.00 -0.85 0.25 large

NONE Turns / min 0.40 0.30 0.50 0.25 0.45 0.27

STR Turns / min 0.42 0.33 0.54 0.28 0.48 0.30 0.03 -0.83 0.415 -0.11 0.05 0.03 small

REH Turns / min 0.36 0.16 0.73 0.45 0.55 0.38 0.10 -

1.602 0.123 -0.23 0.03 0.10 medium

Significantly more words and syllables spoken after strategic planning or rehearsal(especially for LOW participators)

Participation results

LOW part - NO PLANNING

LOW part - STRATEGIC

LOW part - REHEARSAL

HIGH part - NO PLANNING

HIGH part - STRATEGIC

HIGH part - REHEARSAL

OVERALL - NO PLANNING

OVERALL - STRATEGIC

OVERALL - REHEARSAL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

6.85

10.51 10.13

16.06 16.34

18.55

11.46

13.4314.34

Mean words/min








OVERALL - STRATEGIC

OVERALL - REHEARSAL

0

5

10

15

20

25

8.74

13.99 13.36

20.56 20.65

22.79

14.65

17.32 18.08

Mean syllables/min

LOW participators

(N=12)

HIGH participators

(N=12)

OVERALL(N=24) (N=24) 95% confidence

interval


Sig. (two-

tailed)

lower

upper

eta squared

Effect size

NONE Speech Rate A 67.26 31.24 76.38 19.76 71.82 25.99

STR Speech Rate A 84.96 20.96 82.15 20.33 83.56 20.24 11.74 -

2.263 0.033 -22.46 -1.01 0.18 large

REH Speech Rate A 84.52 18.09 84.05 16.82 84.29 17.08 12.46 -

2.591 0.016 -22.41 -2.51 0.23 large

NONE Speech Rate B 62.57 30.02 64.93 21.53 63.75 25.58

STR Speech Rate B 75.92 19.10 73.30 21.01 74.61 19.68 10.86 -

2.193 0.039 -21.10 -0.61 0.17 large

REH Speech Rate B 78.12 21.60 74.53 17.69 76.33 19.39 12.58 -

2.616 0.015 -22.52 -2.63 0.23 large

NONE L1 fillers / min 5.16 4.91 7.53 4.87 6.35 4.93

STR L1 fillers / min 5.64 4.78 9.13 6.58 7.39 5.90 1.04 -

1.464 0.157 -2.52 0.43 0.09 medium

REH L1 fillers / min 4.04 2.97 8.52 6.73 6.28 5.58 -0.07 0.084 0.934 -1.55 1.68 0.00 small

NONE Pauses / min 9.94 4.02 8.83 2.01 9.39 3.16

STR Pauses / min 8.30 3.01 6.85 2.27 7.58 2.71 -1.81 2.764 0.011 0.45 3.16 0.25 largeREH Pauses / min 7.50 2.71 6.62 1.91 7.06 2.34 -2.33 3.026 0.006 0.74 3.92 0.28 largeNONE Reps / min 1.12 1.66 3.28 2.72 2.20 2.46

STR Reps / min 2.05 1.56 3.25 3.15 2.65 2.51 0.45 -0.732 0.472 -1.74 0.83 0.02 small

REH Reps / min 1.44 1.76 3.03 3.26 2.23 2.69 0.04 -0.07 0.945 -1.21 1.13 0.00 smallNONE Reforms / min 1.41 1.14 2.67 1.34 2.04 1.38

STR Reforms / min 1.53 1.21 1.60 0.88 1.57 1.04 -0.48 1.539 0.137 -0.16 1.11 0.09 medium

REH Reforms / min 1.12 1.36 2.29 0.96 1.70 1.30 -0.34 1.311 0.203 -0.20 0.88 0.07 medium

Significant increases in speech rates and decreases in pauses after strategic planning or rehearsal

Fluency results








OVERALL - STRATEGIC

OVERALL - REHEARSAL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

62.57

75.92 78.12

64.93

73.3 74.53

63.75

74.61 76.33

Mean Speech Rate B








OVERALL - STRATEGIC

OVERALL - REHEARSAL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

9.94

8.37.5

8.83

6.85 6.62

9.39

7.587.06

Mean pauses/min of speech

LOW participators

(N=12)

HIGH participators

(N=12)

OVERALL(N=24) (N=24)

95% confidence interval


Sig. (two-tailed

)

lower

upper

eta squared

Effect size

NONE Ref clauses / 100 pruned words

6.40 4.61 5.60 3.69 6.00 4.10

STR Ref clauses / 100 pruned words

2.66 2.37 4.66 2.44 3.66 2.57 -2.34 2.496 0.02 0.40 4.29 0.2

1 large

REH Ref clauses / 100 pruned words

5.38 4.88 5.54 2.39 5.46 3.76 -0.54 0.705 0.488 -

1.05 2.14 0.02 small

NONE Number of reasons / turn 0.93 0.57 1.91 1.13 1.42 1.01

STR Number of reasons / turn 2.32 1.73 1.96 1.30 2.14 1.51 0.73

-2.324

0.029 -1.37

-0.08

0.19 large

REH Number of reasons / turn 1.77 1.15 1.73 0.93 1.75 1.02 0.33

-1.491

0.15 -0.79 0.13 0.0

9 medium

Significantly more reasons given per turn after strategic planning (especially for LOW participators)

Significantly less reference clauses per 100 words after strategic planning (especially for LOW participators)

Discourse Coherence results








OVERALL - STRATEGIC

OVERALL - REHEARSAL

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

76.4

2.66

5.38 5.6

4.66

5.546

3.66

5.46

Mean ref clauses/100 words








OVERALL - STRATEGIC

OVERALL - REHEARSAL

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0.93

2.32

1.771.91 1.96

1.73

1.42

2.14

1.75

Mean reasons/turn

Recommendations- Use Strategic Planning or Rehearsal prior to discussions (higher participation and fluency): HELP THEM SPEAK MORE, FASTER AND WITH LESS PAUSES- Consider some Strategic Planning (significantly more reasons/turn): HELP THEM STRUCTURE THEIR IDEAS- Be cautious of only Strategic Planning (lower references clauses/100 words): BE WARY OF ‘SPEECH-LIKE’ DISCUSSIONS

Further research-Combining Strategic Planning and Rehearsal:Is it possible to get the best out of both?

-Longer-term effects of pre-task planning:Do immediate effects on performance transfer to performance on different tasks in the longer-term?

ReferencesBygate, M. & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative Planning and the Use of Task Repetition. In Ellis, R. (ed.) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: apprising the developing language of learners. In Willis, D. and Willis, J., editors, Challenge and change in language teaching. London: Heinemann.Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of Task Repetition on the Structure and Control of Oral Language. In Bygate, M. et al. (eds.) Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Pearson Education.Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second language acquisition, 18(03), 299-323.Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 221-250.Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, 141-162.Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in second language acquisition, 12(03), 287-301.Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85-106.

Robert StroudKwansei Gakuin University, JapanEmail: [email protected]

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/robertdstroud/

Thank you for attending today’s presentation. If you wish to ask anything else regarding the presentation, or my own research focuses, please feel free to contact me.

https://sites.google.com/site/robertdstroud/

Planning and Group Discussion Task Performance

Documents