Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T04:04:50.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of pre-task planning on EFL learners’ oral performance in a 3D multi-user virtual environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2020

Julian ChengChiang Chen Open the ORCID record for Julian ChengChiang Chen [Opens in a new window]
Julian ChengChiang Chen*
Affiliation:
Curtin University, Australia ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prior research on pre-task planning examines its effects on the quality of second language (L2) learners’ planned output. Planning mitigates the cognitive overload placed upon L2 learners’ oral performance, thus improving language production. Despite the pedagogical benefits, studies on pre-task planning on L2 learners’ oral output are conducted mostly in a lab or class setting. Whether or not similar effects of pre-task planning can be evidenced in three-dimensional (3D) multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs), such as Second Life (SL), is still less explored. Hence, this study investigates whether pre-task planning could enhance the quality and quantity of English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ task-oriented, voice-based outcomes in SL. Nine EFL learners worldwide participated in this 10-session virtual class. Data were collected through students’ oral presentations in performing real-life simulated tasks related to their home cultures and interests. Yuan and Ellis’s (2003) framework of T-units measures was adopted to analyze their linguistic performance measured by complexity and accuracy. Results indicated that EFL learners showed statistically significant improvement on grammatical complexity on the levels of syntactic complexity and variety (but not on lexical variety) and on linguistic accuracy across all measured levels (error-free clauses/T-units/verb forms). It is suggested that pre-task planning can be seeded in task-based instruction either in a classroom-based or 3D MUVE setting to optimize the quality of learners’ linguistic performance. Tasks that are real-world oriented and targeting learners’ cultural repertoires and world knowledge also positively impact their virtual learning experiences. These significant implications add new research and pedagogical dimensions to the field of computer-assisted language learning.

Keywords

3D multi-user virtual environment (MUVE)Second Life (SL)pre-task planningEnglish as a foreign language (EFL)task-based language teaching (TBLT)
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 232 - 249
Check for updates
Copyright
© European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1): 111–125.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. (2008) Effect size and eta squared. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 12(2): 38e43.Google Scholar
Canto, S., de Graaff, R. & Jauregi, K. (2014) Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–212. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.07canCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. C. (2016a) EFL learners’ strategy use during task-based interaction in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2306Google Scholar
Chen, J. C. (2016b) The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in Second Life. Computers & Education, 102: 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. C. (2018) The interplay of tasks, strategies and negotiations in Second Life. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8): 960–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1466810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D., Kern, R. & Smith, B. (2016) Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1): 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2008) New directions in CALL: An objective introduction to Second Life. CALICO Journal, 25(3): 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v25i3.547-557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2009) A new language for the Net Generation: Why Second Life works for the Net Generation. In Oxford, R. & Oxford, J. (eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net Generation. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 173–180.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989) Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4): 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100008391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawley, L. & Dede, C. (2014) Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. In Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J. & Bishop, M. J. (eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer, 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3): 50–80.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (1986) Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In Day, R. R. (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House, 147–181.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2008) Investigating consciousness-raising tasks: Pedagogically targeted and non-targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2): 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00188.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100006483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2000) Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3): 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009a) 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009b) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3): 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2018) Reflections on task-based language teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788920148Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3): 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100015047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1999) Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2): 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2015) A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (2014) Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauregi, K. (2016) Researching telecollaboration processes in foreign language education: Challenges and achievements. In Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (ed.), Technology implementation in second language teaching and translation studies. Singapore: Springer, 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0572-5_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511815355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. J. J. & Gerber, H. (2013) It’s a WoW World: Second language acquisition and massively multiplayer online gaming. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 16(2): 53–70. https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2013.16.2.53Google Scholar
Linden Lab. (2013) Infographic: 10 years of second life [Press release]. https://www.lindenlab.com/releases/infographic-10-years-of-second-life Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985) A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 77–99.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990) Task, groups, and task-group interactions. In Anivan, S. (ed.), Language teaching methodology for the nineties (Anthology Series 24). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 1–50.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. & Crookes, G. (1992) Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1): 27–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, K. O. & Wong, S. P. (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1: 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263198001041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, B. (2001) Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In Breen, M. P. (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research. Harlow: Pearson Education, 159–171.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (2006) Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3): 12–18.Google Scholar
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990) Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega (1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1): 109–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263199001047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. & González-Lloret, M. (2015) Staking out the territory of technology-mediated TBLT. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.03ortCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006) Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1): 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220600804087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2010a) Learner participation patterns and strategy use in Second Life: An exploratory case study. ReCALL, 22(3): 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344010000169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2010b) Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5): 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.520673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2012) EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCALL, 24(1): 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344011000279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2016a) The use of massively multiplayer online role-playing games in CALL: An analysis of research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(7): 1181–1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1197949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2016b) Virtual worlds and language learning: An analysis of research. In Farr, F. & Murray, L. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology. New York: Routledge, 308–319.Google Scholar
Pica, T. & Doughty, C. J. (1985) Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers, 115–132.Google Scholar
Prensky, M. (2005a) “Engage me or enrage me”: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5): 61–64.Google Scholar
Prensky, M. (2005b) Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4): 8–13.Google Scholar
Puentedura, R. R. (2006) Transformation, technology, and education [Blog post]. http://hippasus.com/resources/tte Google Scholar
Sadler, R. (2012) Virtual worlds: An overview and pedagogical examination. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 5(1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, R. & Dooly, M. (2013) Language learning in virtual worlds: Research and practice. In Thomas, M., Reinders, H. & Warschauer, M. (eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning. London, UK: Bloomsbury, 159–182.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1): 38–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3): 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2005) Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.12skeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3): 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swender, E., Conrad, D. & Vicars, R. (2012) ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
Tajima, M. (2003) The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language. Purdue University, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Wang, F. & Burton, J. K. (2013) Second Life in education: A review of publications from its launch to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3): 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01334.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigham, C. R. & Chanier, T. (2015) Interactions between text chat and audio modalities for L2 communication and feedback in the synthetic world Second Life. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3): 260–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.851702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. (1995) Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning, 45(1): 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00961.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Chen supplementary material

Chen supplementary material

Download Chen supplementary material(File)
File 20.2 KB