1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 引導式構思及配對構思對英語學習者口語表達之影響
The effects of using guided planning and paired planning on young EFL learners` oral production
作者 黃竹欣
Huang, Chu Hsin
貢獻者 余明忠
Yu, Ming Chung
黃竹欣
Huang, Chu Hsin
關鍵詞 引導式構思
配對構思
英語
口語表達
guided planning
paired planning
English
oral production
日期 2011
上傳時間 4-Sep-2013 14:56:20 (UTC+8)
摘要 在任務性教學的研究裡，構思時間大都有助於口語表達流暢度，但構思時間對口語表達複雜度與正確度的影響，在研究中則尚無定論。本研究旨在探討引導式構思(guided planning)與配對構思(paired planning)對學童英語口語表達的影響，期能對以上爭論做出貢獻。此研究以90位新竹市國小高年級學生為研究對象，並依照構思情境的不同將學生分成三組進行口述故事任務: (1) 無引導構思 (2) 引導式構思 (3) 引導式配對構思。本研究主要結論如下: (1) 就流暢度與複雜度而言，引導式構思與配對構思對學生在口語表達無顯著影響。值得注意的是，配對構思組的學生，會使用較更高程度的字彙來說故事；(2) 就文法正確度而言，引導式構思組學生的表現顯著優於無引導式構思組與引導式配對構思組。而配對構思組的學生雖然沒有使用文法較正確的語言來說故事，卻對配對構思在文法正確度方面的影響持肯定態度。本研究最後針對不同構思情境在口語教學上的應用提供建議，做為教育者參考。
A general finding of task planning studies was that planning time significantly facilitates fluency in oral production. When it comes to complexity and accuracy, however, the effects of planning time were less certain. This study aims to contribute to the contradictory results by considering how guided planning and paired planning may impact upon the fluency, complexity and accuracy in learners’ oral production. Subjects were three groups of EFL beginners in Taiwan; they performed oral narrative tasks. Statistical results revealed that these two implementation variables (i.e. guided planning and paired planning) did not aid learners to narrate a story with more fluent and complex language. One thing to be noted here is that paired planners used remarkably greater number of higher level words to tell a story. In terms of accuracy, guided planning led participants to perform tasks with more accurate utterances, while paired planning had no evident effects on speech accuracy. Interestingly, paired planners held a positive attitude towards the valuable role of paired planning on accuracy. This study yielded illuminative information for teachers to boost students’ oral performance by manipulating various task conditions.
參考文獻 References

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.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英語教學碩士在職專班
97951013
100
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097951013
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 余明忠zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Yu, Ming Chungen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃竹欣zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Huang, Chu Hsinen_US
dc.creator (作者) 黃竹欣zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Huang, Chu Hsinen_US
dc.date (日期) 2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned 4-Sep-2013 14:56:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 4-Sep-2013 14:56:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-Sep-2013 14:56:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0097951013en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60030-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英語教學碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 97951013zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在任務性教學的研究裡，構思時間大都有助於口語表達流暢度，但構思時間對口語表達複雜度與正確度的影響，在研究中則尚無定論。本研究旨在探討引導式構思(guided planning)與配對構思(paired planning)對學童英語口語表達的影響，期能對以上爭論做出貢獻。此研究以90位新竹市國小高年級學生為研究對象，並依照構思情境的不同將學生分成三組進行口述故事任務: (1) 無引導構思 (2) 引導式構思 (3) 引導式配對構思。本研究主要結論如下: (1) 就流暢度與複雜度而言，引導式構思與配對構思對學生在口語表達無顯著影響。值得注意的是，配對構思組的學生，會使用較更高程度的字彙來說故事；(2) 就文法正確度而言，引導式構思組學生的表現顯著優於無引導式構思組與引導式配對構思組。而配對構思組的學生雖然沒有使用文法較正確的語言來說故事，卻對配對構思在文法正確度方面的影響持肯定態度。本研究最後針對不同構思情境在口語教學上的應用提供建議，做為教育者參考。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) A general finding of task planning studies was that planning time significantly facilitates fluency in oral production. When it comes to complexity and accuracy, however, the effects of planning time were less certain. This study aims to contribute to the contradictory results by considering how guided planning and paired planning may impact upon the fluency, complexity and accuracy in learners’ oral production. Subjects were three groups of EFL beginners in Taiwan; they performed oral narrative tasks. Statistical results revealed that these two implementation variables (i.e. guided planning and paired planning) did not aid learners to narrate a story with more fluent and complex language. One thing to be noted here is that paired planners used remarkably greater number of higher level words to tell a story. In terms of accuracy, guided planning led participants to perform tasks with more accurate utterances, while paired planning had no evident effects on speech accuracy. Interestingly, paired planners held a positive attitude towards the valuable role of paired planning on accuracy. This study yielded illuminative information for teachers to boost students’ oral performance by manipulating various task conditions.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Table of Contents
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………ii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………iii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………v
Abstract (Chinese)…………………………………………………………………vi
Abstract (English) ……………………………………………………………viii
Chapter
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Background and Motivation………………………………………………1
1.2 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………4
1.3 Significance of the Study………………………………………………4
2. Literature Review………………………………………………………………6
2.1 Theoretical Background of Task-Based Speech Production Research…………………………………………………………………………………6
2.2 Utilization of Planning Time to Balance Communication and Grammar……………………………………………………………………………11
2.3 The Role of Guided Planning in Pre-task Planning………14
2.3.1 Discrepant Effects of Pre-task Planning on Accuracy.14
2.3.2 Possible Solution: Guided Planning…… ……… …….……16
2.4 The Role of Pair Work in Pre-task Planning ………………18
2.4.1 Discrepant Effects of Pre-task Planning on Complexity………………………………………………………………………………18
2.4.2 Possible Solution: Pair Work………………………………………19
2.5 The Interdependent Relationship of Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy…………………………………………………………………………21
Table 2.1 The Effects of Pre-task Planning on Speech Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy in Previous Research………24
2.6 Need for Further Investigation……………………………………27 2.7 Research Questions…………………………………………………………28
3. Methodology………………………………………………………………………29
3.1 Participants……………………………………………………………………29
3.2 Instruments……………………………………………………………………30
3.2.1 The Sampling Test………………………………………………………30
3.2.2 Tasks……………………………………………………………………………32
3.2.3 Guided Worksheet…………………………………………………………33
3.2.4 Questionnaire………………………………………………………………36
3.3 Procedure…………………………………………………………………………37
3.4 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………41
3.4.1 Fluency Measures…………………………………………………………41
3.4.2 Complexity Measures……………………………………………………43
3.4.3 Accuracy Measures………………………………………………………47
3.4.4 Interrater Reliability………………………………………………48
4. Results……………………………………………………………………………49
4.1 Fluency……………………………………………………………………………49
Table 4.1 Means of Fluency……………………………………………………50
4.2 Complexity………………………………………………………………………51
Table 4.2 Means of Complexity………………………………………………52
4.3 Accuracy…………………………………………………………………………52
Table 4.3 Means of Accuracy ………………………………………………53
Table 4.4 Locations of Significance Related to Accuracy…54
5. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………55
5.1 Fluency……………………………………………………………………………55
5.1.1 The Effects of Guided Planning on Oral Fluency………55
5.1.2 The Effects of Paired Planning on Oral Fluency………58
5.2 Complexity………………………………………………………………………60
5.2.1 The Effects of Guided Planning on Oral Complexity…60
5.2.2 The Effects of Paired Planning on Oral Complexity…63
Table 5.1 Means of Higher Level Lexical Complexity……………68
Table 5.2 Locations of Significance Related to Higher Level Lexical Complexity…………………………………………………………………69
5.3 Accuracy…………………………………………………………………………70
5.3.1 The Effects of Guided Planning on Oral Accuracy………70
5.3.2 The Effects of Paired Planning on Oral Accuracy………72
6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………75
6.1 Summary of Important Findings………………………………………75
6.2 Implications……………………………………………………………………78
6.3 Limitations……………………………………………………………………80
6.4 Further Research……………………………………………………………82
6.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………83
References………………………………………………………………………………85
Appendix A: Familiarization Story-retelling Task………………92
Appendix B: Main Story-retelling Task…………………………………93
Appendix C: Guided Planning Worksheet…………………………………94
Appendix D: Questionnaire…………………………………………………98		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1093103 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097951013en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 引導式構思zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 配對構思zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 英語zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 口語表達zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) guided planningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) paired planningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Englishen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) oral productionen_US
dc.title (題名) 引導式構思及配對構思對英語學習者口語表達之影響zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The effects of using guided planning and paired planning on young EFL learners` oral productionen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) References

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.		zh_TW