Effect of (interview) task repetition on complexity, accuracy, fluency, and transfer.

1. Effect of task repetition on Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency, (CAF) and Transfer oKON Effiong 24-04-2011

2. Introduction Research Questions Research Methodology Results and Discussion Conclusion References Outline

3. “ Tasks are L2 classroom activities to be completed through the medium of the L2, but with intrinsically motivating/worthwhile goals other than language practice” (Ros Mitchell, 2000:296).

4. Task repetition CAF compete for learners’ attention (Skehan, 2009) Repetition helps learners to integrate the competing demands of CAF ( Bygate, 1999). When exposed to new versions of the task, learners deal with task variations more effectively (Helgesen, 2003) .

5. Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency (CAF) C = The use of challenging language (Skehan, 2009). A = The quality of being congruent with norms (Housen & Kuiken, 2009). F = Ability to speak at a normal rate without hesitation (Nunan, 1999).

6. Research Questions 1. Does task repetition lead to increased complexity, accuracy and fluency in performance of the same task? 2. Does any improvement from task repetition transfer to performance in a new task?

7. The main task phase What did you do on Sunday from morning to evening? Tell me everything about your last school trip. Talk about your favourite movie. What do you do at juku from start to finish? What do you see in this picture, and what are they doing?

9. New-task phase How do you make a cup of tea/coffee? What are your best two subjects in school and why do you like them? Who is your favourite sportsperson, and why do you like him/her? Tell me what you see in this picture.

11. COMPLEXITY Percentage of utterances including verbs = (Number of turns with verbs/total number of turns) X 100. (Yuan and Ellis, 2003) Percentage of utterances with complete sentences = (Number of turns having complete sentences/the total number of turns) X 100. (Bygate, 2001; Kawauchi, 2005 in Ellis, 2009) ACCURACY Percentage of error-free turns = (Number of error-free turns/the total number of turns) X 100 (Larsen-Freeman, 2006)

12. FLUENCY Total number of words . (Larsen-Freeman, 2006) Total number of pruned words = Total number of words less dysfluent words (Derwing, Munro, Thomson & Rossiter, 2009). Ratio of total words to dysfluent words = Total number of words divided by the total number of dysfluent words (Ellis, 2009).

13. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for measures of CAF (N=32) Measures Week 1 Week 4 New Task HTF group LTF group HTF group LTF group HTF group LTF group M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD % of sentences with verbs 44.31 13.27 31.81 13.40 74.94 25.75 58.69 20.79 44.63 17.66 38.75 19.93 % of complete sentences 44.63 19.23 28.06 13.86 68.50 18.23 53.56 23.98 45.31 13.70 41.37 21.96 % of error-free sentences 81.19 17.04 92.00 4.79 75.31 16.66 83.88 16.81 88.19 11.64 92.06 9.04 total words 68.00 29.39 57.94 23.17 41.81 15.07 37.94 14.86 52.44 23.41 36.88 11.70 total pruned words 62.50 29.02 53.81 20.43 38.37 13.06 33.87 12.66 50.25 22.48 34.88 10.89 ratio of total to dysfluent words 24.77 30.34 29.88 25.06 21.44 15.65 12.85 9.16 32.20 14.57 20.55 13.15

14. Table 2: Repeated measures ANOVA of Within-Subjects Effects (Wk 1 Vs Wk 4) Sphericity and Normality Assumed. N=32 Measure Parameter df MS F Sig ƞ 2 Complexity % verbs 1 13225.00 4.64 .000 .683 % complete sentence 1 751.56 31.62 .000 .513 Accuracy % error-free 1 784.00 4.4 .051 .121 fluency total words 1 85331.14 32.03 .000 .516 total pruned words 1 7766.0 31.15 .000 .509 ratio of total to dysfluent words 1 1656.89 4.49 .043 .130

15. Table 3: One-Way ANOVA showing Between-Groups Effects in Week 4. (Sphericity and Normality Assumed. N=32) (cf: Bygate, 2001) Measure Parameter df Mean square F Sig ƞ 2 Complexity % of sentences with verbs 1 2112.500 6.211 .018 .172 % of complete sentences 1 1785.031 3.935 .057 .116

16. Table 4: Repeated Measures ANOVA showing Within-Subjects Effects (Week 1 vs New Task) Sphericity and Normality Assumed. N=32 Measure Parameter Df MS F Sig ƞ 2 Fluency total words 1 5365.56 24.28 .000 .447 total pruned words 1 3890.64 19.24 .000 .391

17. Table 5: One-Way ANOVA showing Between-Group Effects at the time of the New Task Sphericity and Normality Assumed. N=32 Measure df MS F Sig ƞ 2 total number of words 1 1088.246 5.638 .024 .158 total pruned words 1 1937.531 5.659 .024 .159 ratio of total to dysfluent words 1 1891.125 6.063 .020 .168

18. Week 1: This is...is… oshogatsu (L2 translation provided). New Year’s food. Mother and father. Mother is cooking osechi . He helps mother. And she…they…she…they read… Chair is four, people is five. One people (recast provided). One person is not sit down. Week 2: Kotatsu on the mikan . Ah! What is… mikan …? (Researcher: What is mikan in English?) Orange, oranges on the kotatsu . Bag is on the chair. Father, father helps…father washes cup…cup…glass? Girls… girls… girls… they read a book, book (recast provided). Are reading a book. Mmm… she make little osechi , she make osechi. It’s sunny today. Week 3: The bag is on the chair. Mother make osechi . Father helps mother. Father washes cup. They are reading a book. It’s sunny today. There are four chairs. Week 4: Em…she is reading a book. Father washes cup. Mother cooks osechi . He watches her. Excerpt 1 (Participant S)

19. Excerpt 2 (Participant R) Week 1 R: This is kotatsu , it is very hot. I have a cat, my cat likes kotatsu. I: Clever cat. What’s the name? R: Eto… his name is Mi. Sister is reading. I like to read books. I: Great. R: I want to read. I: May be I should give you a newspaper to read (laughter). Anything else? R: This is shekeda (L2 translation offered) . Our kitchen cabinet is sixteen years old. I: Older than you (laughter). R: My parents kenko… (L2 translation offered) married , married sixteen years ago, no… (laughter) twenty five years ago .

20. Benefits Complexity seems to benefit the most. Comparable to Bygate (2001). Fluency gains were transferred to the new task. Transfer gains lead to acquisition (Ellis, 2009). Lowered anxiety level, leading to greater WTC in class activities. Increased self-confidence and greater collaboration. Perhaps, better L2 perception.

21. Limitations Sample size. Week 1 vs New Task. Asynchronous nature of the task. Self-selection (killer). Future research Microanalysis of CAF to establish interrelationship.

22. References Allen, H. W. & Herron, C. (2003). A mixed-methodology investigation of the linguistic and affective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 370-385. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain, (eds), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning , teaching and testing (pp 23-48). Harlow, England: Longman. Bygate, M. (1999). Tasks as context for framing, reframing and unframing of language. System , 27 , 33-48. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I. & Rossiter, M. J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 533-557. Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Effiong, O. (2009). Testing a test: A near-native speaker's attempt. The Language Teacher, 33 (11), 3-8. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474-509. Helgesen, M. (2003). Bringing task recycling to the classroom. The English Connection, 7 , 5-8. Housen, A. & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 , 461-473. Kinnear, P. R. & Gray, C. D. (2010). PASW Statistics 17: Made simple. New York: Psychology Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27, 590-619. Matsumura, M. Kawamura, K. & Affricano, A. (2008) Narrative task-type repetition and changes in second language use in a classroom environment: A case study. Journal of the Faculty of Education and Human Sciences, Yokohama National University, 10, 125-145. Mitchell, R. (2000). Anniversary article. Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 21, 281-303. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 , 510-532.

23. Email: [email_address] Skype: prinze45 FB: facebook.com/Martins Okon Effiong