The Effects of Pre-Task Planning on Iranian EFL Undergraduates’ Argumentative Writing Task Performance

Authors

1 Associate Professor, University of Tehran

2 MA in TEFL, University of Tehran

Abstract

Despite the growing body of research documented on pre-task planning in oral and written domain, the results of pre-task planning studies are still inconsistent in second language writing research (e.g. Ellis & Yuan, 2004; Johnson, Mercedo, & Acevedo, 2012; Johnson & Nicodemus 2016; Ong & Zhang, 2010). The current study set out to investigate the effects of two planning conditions (pre-task planning and no planning) on the argumentative writing task performance of Iranian EFL undergraduates in terms of multiple measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). To this end, 44 Iranian EFL undergraduates majoring in English literature at the University of Tehran were recruited based on convenience sampling to participate in this study. Employing a counterbalanced ‘within participants’ design, the participants were required to perform an argumentative writing task under both pre-task planning and no planning conditions. In the pre-task planning condition, in addition to 17 minutes for performing the task, the participants were provided with 10 minutes to plan prior to the task, whereas in the no planning condition, they were not provided with any time to plan. The results of paired sample t-test failed to reveal any significant difference between writing task performance in terms of measures of CAF under pre-task planning and no planning conditions. Thus, it was shown that pre-task planning did not benefit any of the measures (CAF) of argumentative writing task. Possible explanations for the results of this study and pedagogical implications of the findings are discussed.
 

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

تاثیر برنامه ریزی پیش از تکلیف در عملکرد تکلیف نگارش استدلالی فراگیران ایرانی زبان انگلیسی در دوره کارشناسی

Authors [Persian]

  • علی اکبر خمیجانی فراهانی 1
  • فاطمه فاریابی 2
1 دانشیار زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه تهران
2 کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه تهران
Abstract [Persian]

علیرغم مطالعات افزاینده در حوزه برنامه ریزی پیش از تکلیف،  نتایج تحقیقات در برنامه ریزی پیش از تکلیف نگارش زبان دوم متناقض می باشند. مطالعه حاضر با هدف بررسی تاثیر دو شرایط برنامه ریزی (شرایط برنامه ریزی پیش از تکلیف و شرایط بدون برنامه ریزی) در پیچیدگی واژگانی صحت دستوری و سلاست تکلیف نگارش استدلالی دانشجویان کارشناسی انجام شد. برای تحقق این منظور 44 دانشجوی کارشناسی رشته ادبیات انگلیسی بر اساس نمونه گیری به روش آسان برای شرکت در این تحقیق استخدام شدند. با به کارگیری یک طرح موازنه درون گروهی،  شرکت کنددگان می بایست یک تکلیف نگارش استدلالی  را در هر دو  شرایط با برنامه ریزی پیش از تکلیف و بدون برنامه ریزی پیش از تکلیف انجام بدهند. در شرایط برنامه ریزی پیش از تکلیف به شرکت کنندگان علاوه بر 17 دقیقه زمان برای نگارش 10 دقیقه زمان برنامه ریزی پیش از تکلیف اختصاص داده شد،  در حالی که در شرایط بدون برنامه ریزی هیچ زمان برنامه ربزی به شرکت کنندگان اختصاص داده نشد. نتایج اماری تفاوت معنا داری بین پیچیدگی واژگانی صحت دستوری و سلاست تکلیف نگارش استدلالی دانشجویان در دو شرایط برنامه ریزی (برنامه ریزی  پیش از تکلیف و بدون برنامه ریزی) نشان نداد. بنابراین نتایج تحقیق  حاضر حاکی از این است که زمان برنامه ریزی تاثیر قابل ملاحظه ای در تکلیف نگارش استدلالی شرکت کنندگان نداشت. توضیحات ممکن برای نتایج بدست امده و دلالت های اموزشی ان مورد بحث قرار گرفته اند.
 

Keywords [Persian]

  • تکلیف نگارش استدلالی
  • دانشجویان زبان انگلیسی
  • شرایط برنامه ریزی
  • شرایط برنامه ریزی پیش از تکلیف و شرایط بدون برنامه ریزی
Adams, R., Amani, S., Newton, J., & Alwi, N. (2014). Planning and production in computer-mediated communication (CMC) writing. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchón (Eds.) Task-based language learning-insights from and for L2 learning (pp. 137-161).John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.

Biria, R., & Karimi, Z. (2015). The effects of pre-task planning on the writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(2), 357-365.

Bygate, M. & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis, (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 37-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. (2014) Task-based language learning-insights from and for L2 learning.John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Candlin, C. N. (2001). Afterword: Taking the curriculum to task. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 229-243). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Carnie, A. (2006). Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chenoweth, A., & Hayes, J. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98.

Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-383.

Dancey, C. & Reidy, J. (2011). Statistics without maths for psychology. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall/Pearson.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Ellis, R. (2004).  The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227-275.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(01), 59-84.

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language learning (pp. 167-192). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp.79-97). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Galbraith, D. (2009). Writing as discovery. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2(6), 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/978185409x421129

Galbraith, D., & Torrance, M. (2004). Revision in the context of different drafting strategies. In G. Rijlaarsdam, L. Allal, L. Chanquoy & P. Largy (eds.), Studies in writing: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp.63-85). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

García Mayo, M. (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon [England]: Multilingual Matters.

Ghavamnia, M., Tavakoli, M., & Esteki, M. (2013).The effect of Pre-Task and online planning conditions on complexity, accuracy, and fluency on EFL learners’ written production. Porta Linguarum Junio, 6(2), 31-43

Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1515 /iral.2007.010

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hayes, J. R., & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 29-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hudson, G. (2000). Essential introductory linguistics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.

Heiman, G. (2002). Research methods in psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Johnson, M. D. (2014). Does planning really help? Effectiveness of planning in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 107-118.

Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264-282.

Johnson, M. D., & Nicodemus, C. (2016). Testing a threshold: an approximate replication of Johnson, Mercado & Acevedo 2012. Language Teaching, 49(2), 251-274. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1017/s0 261444815000087

Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:  John Benjamins.

Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 327-342.

Khomeijani Farahani, A. A., & Meraji, S. R.  (2011). Cognitive task complexity and L2 narrative writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 445-456.

Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. (Eds.) Task-based language learning-insights from and for L2 learning (193-216). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83-108.

Nitta, R., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing, 31 (2), 147-175.

Ojima M. (2006). Concept-mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System, 34, 566-585.

Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218-233.

Philips, D. (2001). Longman Introductory Course for the TOEFL test. London: Longman.

Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101-143.

Rahimpour, M., & Safarie, M. (2011). The effects of on-line and pre-task planning on descriptive writing of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 274-277.

Richards, B. J. & Malvern, D. D. (2004). Investigating the validity of a new measure of lexical diversity for root and inflected forms. In K. Trott, S. Dobbinson, & P. Griffith (eds.). The child language reader (pp. 81-9). London: Routledge.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 7-57.

Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45-105.

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1-32.

Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-26). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Robinson, P. & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3).

Ruiz-Funes, M. (2014). Task complexity and linguistic performance in advanced college level foreign language writing. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. (Eds.) Task-based language learning-insights from and for L2 learning (163-191).John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Sanguran, J. (2001). The effects of pre-task planning on foreign language performance. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.

Sanguran, 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. 111-143). Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Seyyedi, K., Ismal A. M., Orang, M., & Sharifi Nejad, M. (2013). The effect of pre-task planning time on L2 learners’ narrative writing performance. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 110.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied linguistics, 17, 38-62

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49 (1), 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.

Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In: H. Byrnes & R. Manchon (eds.) Task based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217-236). John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Tavakoli, M., & Rezazadeh, M. (2014). Individual and collaborative planning conditions: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 argumentative writing. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, (JTLS) 5(4), 85-110.

Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27.

Yule, G. (1996). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.