6. Conclusion
6.4 Further Research
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
82
6.4 Further Research
Among the many possibilities to be explored for future research, several important dimensions can be listed. First, it is recommended that this study can be replicated in various contexts or on participants of different proficiency so that the results can be generalized to a larger group of students.
Second, a longitudinal investigation of learners’ productive complexity and fluency is necessary in order to determine the effects of strategic planning on
long-term inter-language development, which is beyond the scope of this study. Due to the generally gradual development of linguistic fluency and complexity, it is possible that strategic planning might benefit indirectly and cumulatively through extended planning tasks.
Another fruitful direction for future research should examine the planning process during which learners prepare in different ways either owing to the
manipulation of experimental variables or because of personal attributes. With more qualitative research instrument and more exploratory attitudes, our understanding about the construct of the central role that strategic planning plays in learner discourse might be broadened.
Finally, additional research on other types of oral tasks should be quite beneficial for predicting the correlation between the task type and the three linguistic goals. This
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
83
is quite important for teachers who should play an active role to foresee the
characteristics and maximize the profitable influence of each task type, rather than just passively observe students’ language progress after accomplishing tasks. If the value of each task type is predictable, teachers would save time and energy to have a resourceful library of tasks for different language purposes in task-based instruction.
6.5 Conclusion
Oral skills have not figured centrally into SLA research until the advent of the theory of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972). Since then, speaking has become a focal point in English teaching, especially in the elementary stage, based on the nine-year integrated curriculum proposed by the Ministry of Education. In
accordance with the current trend, task-based instruction (TBI) has been in
widespread use by advocates to reinforce learners’ oral communication skills. And yet, it has been extensively recognized that speaking is the most demanding language skill to achieve.
Among the various topics of TBI research, there has been an issue about how pre-task planning has acted on students’ oral discourse, especially on the linguistic dimensions of fluency, complexity, and accuracy. While many researchers have dedicated research to equally boost students’ language skills on the three linguistic
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
84
goals through communication activities, it remains controversial on two of the three aspects: complexity and accuracy.
In an attempt to improve students’ productive quality on the two facets, this study has proposed that the employment of guidance and paired planning in speaking tasks could be a feasible and profitable way to teach oral discourse. Such finding has illuminated the instruction of speaking at primary stage. Even so, guided planning and paired planning teaching activities, with their own limitations, can only complement other speaking teaching techniques. It is hoped that these short-term gains in pre-task planning will contribute in the longer term to the progress in task-based language teaching.
‧
Adams, D., & Hamm, M. (1996). Cooperative learning: Critical thinking and
collaboration across the curriculum (2nd ed.). Springfield: Charles C Thomas.
Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Batstone, R. (2005). Planning as discourse activity: A sociocognitive view. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 277-295).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Berman, R. A. (1988). On the ability to relate events in narrative. Discourse Processes, 11, 469-497.
Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing 26(3), 341-366.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising learners' performances on tasks. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146). London: Heinemann.
Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners' language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185-214.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language.
In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks:
Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow:
Longman.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.
Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin & D.
Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). London: Prentice Hall.
‧
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chiu, S. l. (2008). The effectiveness of scaffolding on English speaking ability from a socio-cultural perspective. Unpublished master's thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-383.
Daller, H., Hout, R. V., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197-222.
Davis, L. (2009). The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment.
Language Testing, 26(3), 367-396.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(Supplement 1), 1-25.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf
& G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.
33-56). Norwood: Ablex.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305-325
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-262). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elder, C., & Iwashita, N. (2005). Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference? In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(1), 1-20.
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom (pp.
179-211). Singapore: RELC.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005a). Planning and task-based research: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2005b). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
‧
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509.
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2001). Form-focused instruction and second language learning.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fathman, A. K. (1980). Repetition and correction as an indication of speech planning and execution processes among second language learners. In H. W. Dechert &
M. Raupach (Eds.), Towards a crosslinguistic assessment of speech production (pp. 77-85). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Foster, Tonkyn, & Wigglesworth. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M., & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on task linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549-581.
Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/- Here-and-Now): Effects on L2 oral production In M.
Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.
44-68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Guara´-Tavares, M. G. (2008). Pre-task planning, working memory capacity and L2 speech performance. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34(1), 23-43.
Hunt, K. (1966). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43(7), 732-739.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate l2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143-164).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1), 79-95.
‧
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93.
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-media collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260-276.
Lennon, P. (1989). Introspection and intentionality in advanced second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 39, 375-396.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.
TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 303-323.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G.
Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-167). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16(3), 5-19.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different length of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 52-83.
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11-37.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 109-148.
‧
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77-109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.
Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (1982). The effects of thematic-fantasy play training on the development of children's story comprehension. American Educational
Research Journal, 19(3), 443-452.
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. M.
Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.
115-132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 189-207.
Porter, P. (1983). Variations in the conversations of adult learners of English as a function of proficiency level of the participants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University.
Richards, Jack, C., & Nunan, D. (1990). Second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, B., & Malvern, D. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85-104.
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse.
Language Learning, 45, 99-140.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22(1), 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning:
Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 193-213.
Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics 30(4), 533-554.
‧
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. London: Longman.
Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111-141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Saville, N., & Hargreaves, P. (1999). Assessing speaking in the revised FCE. English Language Teaching, 53(1), 42-51.
Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 13-30). New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93-120.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R.
Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.
193-216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-77.
Stewig, J., & Young, L. (1978). An exploration of the relation between creative drama and language growth. Children's Theatre Review, 27(2), 10-12.
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363-374.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401.
‧
Tajima, M. (2003). The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Purdue University.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taylor, L. (2000). Investigating the paired speaking test format. Research Notes, 2, 15-16.
Taylor, L., & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts. Language Testing 26(3), 325-339.
Tuan, T. A., & Neomy, S. (2007). Investigating group planning in preparation for oral presentations in an EFL class in Vietnam. RELC 38(1), 104-124.
Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005). Explaining after by before: Basic aspects of a dynamic systems approach to the study of development. Developmental Review, 25, 408-442.
Van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1983). Target language input from non-native speakers. Paper presented at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention.
Ware, P. D., & O' Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 12(1), 43-63.
Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Temple University.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 21-44.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
Yuan, F., & 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.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
92
Appendix A: Familiarization Story-retelling Task
This story is called The Present. It is David’s birthday, so he is very excited. His friends come to his party. His mother, father and baby sister are there too. After they finish eating birthday cake, they go into another room and find a giant birthday present. When the boy opens it, he is very excited to learn that he has got a brand new drum set for his birthday. After his friends go home, he begins to happily play his new drums. Two hours later, David is still playing his drums loudly, and his parents and baby sister do not seem to be happy. They kind of regret that they decide to get him drums for his birthday.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
93
Appendix B: Main Story-retelling Task
A family is going on a picnic. When they arrive at the picnic site, the father prepares the food while the mother takes a nap. The brother and sister decide to go play tennis. While they are away, a mother bear and a baby bear come to the picnic site and scare the father up into a tree, but the mother keeps sleeping. When the children come back, they see the bears and decide to give them some bananas. While the children are giving the bears the bananas, the father is still hiding up in the tree and the mother is still sleeping.
‧
Appendix C: Guided Planning Worksheet
<individual guided planning group>
‧
例1： When the teacher comes in, the students are talking.
例 2: When the mother goes home, her children are writing
homework.
‧
例1： When the teacher comes in, the students are talking.
例 2: When the mother goes home, her children are writing homework.
步驟三、想想看有哪些轉折語氣的英文字，像是：first(首先)，second(第 二)，next(接下來)…finally(最後);或是then(然後)、but(但是)、so(所 以)，是可以用在故事裡的，這可以讓妳的同學更清楚瞭解故事發展的順序。
步驟四、記得決定好要說的句子之後，先想一下文法正不正確喔！
步驟五、可以利用底下的空白部份寫出待會說故事的重點部份囉～
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
97
圖一
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
圖二
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
圖三
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
圖四
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
圖五
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
‧
1. 姓名：____________________
2. 年齡：____________________
3. 性別：□女 □男
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
99
5. 你覺得10分鐘的準備時間很充裕。
□非常同意 □同意 □不同意□非常不同意
6. 對這次看圖說故事的活動，有沒有感想、收穫、開心或是任何可以和我們分享 的事情呢？
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
問卷結束。謝謝作答！
‧
1. 姓名：____________________
2. 年齡：____________________
3. 性別：□女 □男
□引導學習單能提醒我使用一些轉折用語，例如first, second, third
□引導學習單能提醒我使用正確的文法結構或句型(現在式、介係詞…)
‧
‧
1. 姓名：____________________
2. 年齡：____________________
3. 性別：□女 □男
□引導學習單能提醒我使用一些轉折用語，例如first, second, third
□引導學習單能提醒我使用正確的文法結構或句型(現在式、介係詞…)