Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 5:2 (2023) ► pp.149–169

Does repeated pre-task planning have an impact on form-focused LREs?

Evidence from EFL children

ORCID logo | Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)
ORCID logo | Universidad Pública de Navarra
Pre-task planning has been shown to improve fluency and complexity in adult learners’ speech in monologic tasks. Previous work considered pre-task planning in interactive tasks with young children in an ESL setting and reported that, in general, it had an impact on the amount of talk. However, no study so far has considered the impact of planning on the production of language-related episodes (LREs) by young children. This study examined the relationship between planning time and the accurate production of three target form-focused LREs (FFLREs) by thirty-three dyads of 11–12-year-old EFL learners who took part in a longitudinal experiment in which they narrated picture-prompted stories four times under one of three conditions: unguided planning (12 dyads), guided planning (12 dyads), or no-planning (9 dyads). Results showed that no significant improvement in target feature production was observed across weeks or conditions. Regarding accuracy, a notable difference emerged between the pre-test and delayed post-test in the unguided planning condition. Regarding between-group comparisons, although the guided planning group initially demonstrated higher accuracy than their counterparts, this distinction was not maintained. Thus, planning had limited benefits when considering FFLREs. Methodological and pedagogical implications will be discussed.
Keywords: pre-task planning, EFL children, LREs, focus on form, longitudinal study
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Pre-task planning and task repetition
    • 2.2Research questions
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Target features
    • 3.3Data collection
    • 3.4Data analysis
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion and pedagogical implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 19 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00038.may
References (60)
References
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 480–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, H., & Fu, M. (2021). Corrective feedback and the development of second language grammar. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning (pp. 367–386). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 603–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (Ed.). (2018). Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambridge Young Learners English Assessment. (2018). Cambridge English A2 Flyers. Volume 11. Cambridge English language assessment. Retrieved March 28, 2020, from [URL]
Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2021). Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness, 20(1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Do task repetition and pretask focus on form instruction impact collaborative writing performance? Evidence from young learners. In M. Li and M. Zhang (Eds.), L2 collaborative writing in diverse learning contexts. (pp. 78–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, L., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 1001, 133–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved March 28, 2020 from [URL]
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Explicit versus implicit oral corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook on corrective feedback (pp. 341–364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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(1), 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enever, J. (2018). Politics and policy in global primary English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2021). Task interaction in task-supported EFL/CLIL contexts. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 397–415). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Aguirre, A. (2016). Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 451–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Villarreal, I. (2011). The development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque-Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research, 27(1), 129–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–200). London: LEA.Google Scholar
Genessee, F. (Ed.). (1994). Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole communitiy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guara-Tavarés, M. (2016). Learners’ processes during pre-task planning and working memory capacity. Ilha do Desterro, 691, 79–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, M. A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2021). The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research, 25(4), 565–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imaz Aguirre, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Gender agreement in L3 English by Basque/Spanish bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), 415–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Proficiency and transfer effects in the acquisition of gender agreement by L2 and L3 English learners. In J. Cho, M. Iverson, T. Juddy, T. Leal & E. Shimanskaya (Eds.), Meaning and structure in second language acquisition. In honor of Roumyana Slabakova (pp. 203–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, E. Y., Sok, S., & Han, Z. (2019). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: a meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 428–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasprowicz, R., & Marsden, E. (2018). Towards ecological validity in research into input-based practice: Form spotting can be as beneficial as form-meaning practice. Applied Linguistics, 39(6), 886–911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1985). “If at first you do succeed…” In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition, (pp. 345–353). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Khoram, A. (2019). The impact of task type and pre-task planning condition on the accuracy of intermediate EFL learners’ oral performance. Cogent Education 6(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Kang, S., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, B. (2020). The role of task repetition in a Korean as a foreign language classroom: Writing quality, attention to form, and learning of Korean grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 53(4), 827–849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, L., Chen, J., & Sun, L. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 38–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching.” Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 173–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63(4), 629–664. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk: Transcription format and programs. (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “Unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 617–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 121, 11–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newton, J., & Nguyen, B. T. T. (2019). Task repetition and the public performance of speaking tasks in EFL classes at a Vietnamese high school. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 34–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017). Grammar acquisition. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The handbook of instructed second language acquisition, (pp. 205–223). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., Nguyen, B., & Sato, M. (2017). Child instructed SLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The handbook of instructed second language acquisition, (pp. 468–487). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 109–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, S. (2010). The influence of pretask instructions and pretask planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 9–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2006). The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34(4), 547–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qin, J. (2019). Effects of repeated practice in pre-task planning on the acquisition of English personal pronouns by Chinese EFL learners. System, 811, 100–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romanova, N. (2010). Planning, recasts, and learning of L2 morphology. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 843–875. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roos, J. (2019). Exploiting the potential of tasks for targeted language learning in the EFL classroom. In A. Lenzing, H. Nicholas & J. Roos (Eds.), Widening contexts for processability theory. Theories and issues, (pp. 285–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Dussuel-Lam, C. (2021). Metacognitive instruction with young learners: A case of willingness to communicate, L2 use, and metacognition of oral communication. Language Teaching Research, 251, 899–921. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Oyanedel, J. C. (2019). ‘I think that is a better way to teach but ..’ EFL teachers’ conflicting beliefs about grammar teaching. System, 841, 110–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quartely, 25(2), 261–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2014). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance, (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 367–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stansfield, Ch. W., Reed, D. J., & Velasco, A. M. (2005). The Modern language aptitude test- elementary: Spanish version (MLAT-ES). Rockville, MD: Language Learning and Testing Foundation.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attention to form and content in the input. An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Guerrero-Gomez, Janire, María Orcasitas-Vicandi & Marta Kopinska
2024. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.