Task Based Learning:The Role of Planning

Anne-Kathrin Miera Yacoub OStrR‘ i.H.Department of EnglishUniversity of Cologne

Questioning PPP (Present, Practice, Produce)

• individual learning needs ignored• assumption of linear learning processes

challenged• real encounters missing

• need of authentic learning environment• idea of individual control of learning• cognition and social interaction (Little, 2003)• autonomous learner

Constituents of the Second Language Classroom

CONTENT FEEDBACK

language skills

lexisgrammar

meta-cognitive skills

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT T A S K S

PROGRESSION

meta-linguisitc skills

pronunciation

DIFFERENTIATION

Learning atmosphere

Legutke (2006): Aufgabe – Projekt - Szenario

task fields: • classroom• curricula and teaching material• teacher training • task based research (window to

psycholinguistic and social processes)

TASK BASED LEARNING(concept favored in CALL research, stems from applied linguistics)

• Series of tasks (pre- while- post-tasks)

• Focus on meaning (FonM)• Focus on form (FonF)

Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001) in Ellis

(2003, 5)

TASK – A Definition

“A task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with

emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective”

(# exercise)

Ellis (2003)Criterial features of a task

A task… • …is a workplan.• …involves a primary focus on meaning.• …involves real-world processes of

language use.• …can involve any of the four language

skills.• …engages cognitive skills.• …has a clearly defined communicative

outcome.

Design features of unfocused and focused tasks (Ellis)

1. goal purpose (task-as-workplan, not output is described)

2. input verbal/non-verbal information supplied

3. conditions way information is presented (e.g. split vs shared

information)

4. procedures methodological procedure (individual/group/pair

work; planning time/no planning time)

5. predicted outcome: product (e.g. open/closed results)

process linguistic/cognitive processes aimed at

Not to be confused with exercises!

(Legutke) Tasks in the classroom

Ellis (2006) TBL Research Results

• Results are inconsistent

• maybe prediction impossible because tasks co-constructed every time

• Rel. consistent results of research on task planning:– learners given time to plan tasks produce more

complex and fluent output– Unpressured on-line planning can have positive

effects on accuracy

Models of Cognitive Processing

• information processing models; computational model (Lantolf 1996)– Input– Temporary storage of material attended to– Long-term storage– Mechanisms for accessing material from long-term

storage

• 3 central constructs of language processing - Attention and noticing

- Working memory capacity - Focus on form

General Principles of cognitive processing

• Limited capacity: bottlenecks in working memory that lead to prioritizing particular language aspects

• Control mechanism: drawn from stored knowledge, taxes working memory

• Top-down (encyclopedic knowledge/situational context) and bottom-up processes (signals in the input)

Models of Speech Production

Levelt (1989): 3 autonomous processing stages

• conceptualizing the message- Communication goal- Developing sub-goals- Identification of speech act of each

• Formulating the language representation/internal speech- preverbal message (lemma (meaning/syntax) and lexeme (morphological/phonological information)

• Articulating the message- Self-monitoring process (check of original intention, internal speech, overt speech)

Adaptation of Levelt for SLA De Bot (1992) for speaking in L2

• Conceptualising = Macro level (not language specific)

• Formulating = Micro level (language specific)

Models of Writing ProductionKellog (1996)

• Formulation- Planning- Translation

• Execution-Programming- Execution

• Monitoring- Reading- Editing

Skehan (1998)

• Distinction between exemplar-based system/memory based (lexical in nature; single lexical items and chunks) and rule-based system (abstract representations)

• Three dimensions of production:– Fluency (capacity to communicate in real

time)– Accuracy (ability to perform to norms/learner

controls)– Complexity (use of interlanguage that is

elaborate and structured/learner takes risks)

Questions

• What effect does planning have on fluence, accuracy and complexity?

• How do the findings relate to FonF, noticing and the working capacity?

Ellis (2006) Planning

Pre-task PlanningRehearsal

Strategic Planning

Planning

Pressured

Within-task Planning

(on-line Planning) Unpressured

Pre-task Planning: Access to actual task material # other types of pre-task activities (brainstorming content, studying model perform., dictionary search, etc.)Rehearsal: Performing the task before `main performance´ (task repetition)Strategic Planning: Preperation of performance (consideration of content and how to express the content)

Further categorization possible: (un)guided (e.g. directed towards focus on meaning or form) orParticipatory structure (only strategic planning)

Findings of empicirical StudiesPre-task PlanningRehearsals

• Positive effects on accuracy and fluency for retrail (recycling output )

- low proficiency: accuracy and phonology- higher proficiency: clarity/economy of speech

• only for the same task; no evidence for new similar task e.g. poster carousel (Lynch/McLean 2000/01)

Findings of empicirical Studies Pre-task Planning

Strategic Planning

• learners tend to prioritize content (squencing, find logical order)

• mixed findings of effects on accuracy

• enhances fluency (faster speaking rate; fewer dysfluencies)- stronger effect for more difficult narrative tasks and decision

making tasks (Skehan 1996)- learners: greater amount of speech/native speaker: less (Foster

2001) - extending planning time did not have major effect- guided planners more fluent than unguided planners; but

Foster/Skehan (1999) found no effect of asking learners to FonF; Sanguran finds combination of FonM combined with FonF guidance had effect on fluency

- individual learner planning more effective than teacher-led and group- based planning (Skehan/Foster)

- specific form of instruction or group constitution influential•

Findings of empicirical Studies Pre-task PlanningStrategic Planning

•enhances complexity (more complex sentences; wider range of lexis)

- increasing planning time positive effect (Mehnert 1998) - individual learner planning works best (Skehan/Foster) - focus on F or M no effect - guidance how and what to plan helps

The Studies suggest that if learners are given enough time to plan stategically they spend more time on conceptualizing. They consider what they want to say rather than planning detailed linguistic plans. Asking learners to FonF while strategically planning may not make learners to do so. If students attend to form they later have difficulties to use the planned forms in the perfomance.

Trade-off effects presumed: fluency and complexity at expence of accuracy

Findings of empicirical Studies Within-Task Planning

Unpressured

• Impact on accuracy if learners attend to their rule-based system during time given

• more processing time allows students to monitor language production processes

• Time-pressure has negative effects on grammatical structures that are clearly rule-based (word order) rather than lexically driven (e.g. irreg. Past tense forms)

Consequences for SLTeachingInitiate interesting tasks of rehearsals/recycling output (e.g. write discussion in a forum, then rehearse it as stage peformance, act it out)

Allow strategic planning time with challenging tasks

Guide students in the planning process

Allow students to plan individually (…before collaborative tasks – see Norm Green: Think , Pair, Share)

Allow unpressured within-task planning

Try to initiate structure trapping tasks (Skehan, 1998) in order to provoke a natural FonF without reducing FonM

Be aware of the fact that the teacher‘s intention of a task completion might differ from the learner‘s actual task performance

Discourse reconceptualization of planning ( Batstone:2006)

• Learners‘ capacity to plan and to „push“ output are rooted in social context

• Disposition of leaners influential, e.g. discourse spontaneity

• Need for an approach to planning where social factors (learners preparedness to take linguistic risks and be assertive in their discourse) are congruent with cognitive factors

Output pushing ( Batstone:2006)

• So far in TBLresearch communicative discourse as aim for congruence between the social and the cognitve and to provoke ‘cutting edge‘ linguistic form (meaningful, non-mechanistic use of language)

• „learner discourse“ better, because: creation of social context which supports risk taking and output pushing

• „The equation between communicative discourse and output pushing is questionable, however, because sensitivity to one‘s interlocutor can easily deter output pushing and lead one instead towards conservatism and linguistic reductionism“ (p. 285) (e.g. describing pictures to a partner who sorts them)

Research Methods ( Batstone:2006)

• Confusion between linguistic token of complexity (e.g. subordination) and psycholinguistic tokens (degree of difficultuy for indiv. leaner) in SLA research

• Learner-dependent measures necessary as e.g. think-alouds, other protocol analyses or as Ellis suggests pre- and post tests,

Planning and Guidance (Batstone:2006)

• If discourse relevance are disregarded planning hardly possible

• E.g. Foster/Skehan, 1999: ballon example; guidance: think of arguments for character; re-grouping, no discourse structure

• Finding that teacher-led planning superior to group planning questionable

• Regrouping led to disorientation; discource-sensitive planning guidance important; e.g. initial case presentation phase, question and answers, discussion

Learner Discourse ( Batstone:2006)

• In communicative discourse, form as means whilst meaning is the end

• In learning discourse, form is the end and meaning its means (not dichotomous to com. discourse)

• E.g. pictures sequencing task

• Monologues can free learners from constraints of clarity and econonmy (e.g. judgement task, two learners re-tell a story; more complexity – not communicative tasks, because content known)

Consequences ( Batstone:2006)

• „We need to think much more carefully about how to encourage learners to take risks and not to interpret the discourse context primarily in terms of communicative economy“ (289)

• Be cautious with specific recommendations

• More psycho- and sociolinguisticially sensitive research needed with regard to interlanguage boundaries and interpretations of individual learners

Thank you for listening

Bibliography

• Batstone, R. (2006) Planning as discourse activity, in: Ellis, R. (ed) (2005) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Philadelphia 278-295

• Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford

• Ellis,R. Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research, in: Ellis, R. (ed) (2005) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Philadelphia, 3 -33

• Legutke, (2006) Aufgabe – Projekt – Szenario, in: Bausch/Königs (ed) Aufgabenorientierung als Aufgabe: Arbeitspapiere der 26. Frühjahrskonferenz, 14-142

• Little, D. (2003) Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. retrieved on: http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/goodpractice.aspx?resourceid=1409#toc_3371