Collaborative Pre-Task Planning Processes and Second Language Task Performance

Abstract

Task-based language teaching research has investigated the impact of planning on task performance, but little has been reported on the processes that take place while planning is undertaken. This study builds on previous planning research by providing a detailed analysis of four Japanese university learners’ collaborative pre-task planning (two dyads) and their performance on a subsequent second language (L2) oral monologue task that required them to express their opinions on a problem and propose a solution to it. Follow-up interviews incorporating stimulated recall were also conducted to gain insight into learners’ perceptions. Results suggest that the note-taking strategies employed, the interpersonal dynamics of the pairs, the L2 proficiency of the participants, and the language of planning (first language [L1] or L2) resulted in important differences in these learners’ planning processes and subsequent task performances. The results are discussed in terms of how pre-task planning processes might be optimized in teaching and research.

Keywords

Task planning L1 and L2 qualitative collaborative planning planning and performance

Introduction

One way for teachers to enhance learners’ task performance is through pre-task planning – that is, giving learners time prior to the performance of a task to plan what they are going to say. There is now an extensive body of research investigating the effects of planning on task performance (see Skehan, 2018, for a review). This research has provided insights into the impact of different variables in the implementation of pre-task planning on group-level differences in learners’ allocation of attention to form or meaning during task performance. According to Skehan (2018: 155), “what has been strikingly absent is any tradition of qualitative research used to gain insights into what happens during the period when planning is undertaken.” This paper begins to address this gap by adopting a case study approach (Duff, 2007) in order to provide a detailed description of the planning behaviors of four English learners at a Japanese university engaged in collaborative pre-task planning in either their first language (L1) (Japanese) or their second language (L2) (English) and their subsequent L2 task performance.

Language of Planning

The effectiveness of pre-task planning on performance is dependent on several factors, such as the proficiency of learners (e.g. Bui, 2014; O’Grady, 2019), the amount of time given to plan (e.g. Li et al., 2015; Mehnert, 1998), how structured the tasks are (Saeedi, 2015), and whether to provide guided or unguided planning (Foster and Skehan, 1996). However, how the language of planning (L1 versus L2) affects planning is under-researched.

Although the majority of task planning studies have focused on individual planning (e.g. Bui and Teng, 2018; Pang and Skehan, 2014), in practice, classroom planning often involves collaborative planning in pairs or small groups. In English as a second language (ESL) contexts, when learners work together, they generally use the L2 as it is the only shared means of communication. In English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts, however, learners have the option of using their L1. To date, most studies on collaborative planning for oral tasks have restricted learners to planning in the L2 (e.g. Lee and Burch, 2017; Truong and Storch, 2007). This may be because of the assumed advantages of planning in the L2, such as the opportunity for negotiation of language, which helps prime linguistic forms needed for task performance, or because of long-standing beliefs that communicative language teaching means exclusive L2 use (Cook, 2001; Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011). While a lack of meaningful interaction in EFL classrooms has been attributed to overuse of the L1 (Carless, 2004), collaborative planning in the L1 may have its advantages as well. For example, the L1 may be a useful social and cognitive tool (Anton and DiCamilla, 1998), leading to smoother communication (Leeming, 2011) and more developed ideas that can be used in the subsequent task (Ellis, 2012). Furthermore, research has also shown that use of the L1 in conjunction with the L2 can assist in meaning development (Oliver and Nguyen, 2017) and, in the case of task planning (rehearsal before the main task), the L1 can function as a “powerful mediating tool” to resolve language issues, thus providing resources for the subsequent task performance (Newton and Nguyen, 2019: 49). To understand how L1 use can be applied in a principled way, potential benefits and drawbacks for each should be investigated separately.

Planning Processes

Both Skehan (2018) and Ellis (2018) have made calls for qualitative studies on the processes that take place during pre-task planning, which may shed light on the kind of planning strategies that lead to successful transfer of planned content/language to task performance.

Studies focusing on individual planning and using retrospective interviews include Ortega (2005), Pang and Skehan (2014), and Bui and Teng (2018). Ortega (2005) investigated the planning behavior of students of Spanish as a foreign language before a narration task. Following the task, Ortega conducted retrospective open-ended interviews to understand students’ cognitive processes during planning. Content analysis revealed emergent categories in learners’ perceptions regarding planning, including the length of time and how useful the planning had been. A number of students reported that having time to plan was useful for the subsequent task, but 41% did not see any value in planning, reporting a lack of transfer to the task, and a lack of resources during planning. Relating learners’ planning behavior to task performances, Pang and Skehan (2014) examined EFL students’ individual planning strategies for a two-minute narrative performance. Learners’ performances benefited when their planning focused on realistic (i.e. easily produced) language. In a recent study, Bui and Teng (2018) conducted follow-up interviews with students who received individual planning time before tasks and those who did not. Results showed that planning was used to generate relevant vocabulary and to outline the content of the message, but that affective factors such as nervousness negatively impacted learners’ ability to use the language generated during the subsequent task.

Fewer studies have investigated collaborative planning through observation data (e.g. Lee and Burch, 2017; Truong and Storch, 2007). Of relevance to the current study, Truong and Storch (2007) investigated the collaborative planning behavior of learners and its impact on subsequent individual presentations. The researchers examined the participatory structure of each group and found that a single student generally emerged as the leader and took charge of the planning session. As evidence for the usefulness of collaborative planning, they found that most planned content was used in the task performances.

With respect to future research on pre-task planning, Skehan (2018) notes that, “it would be desirable for this research to routinely collect performance data and relate the reports of what people did during planning time to variation in performance” (p.225). Without understanding how different planning processes impact performance, we cannot gain deeper insight into how to optimize planning for different types of learners.

Interpersonal Dynamics

Research has shown that successful collaboration during tasks depends, to an extent, on interpersonal dynamics (Leeming, 2019). Interpersonal dynamics focuses on the relationship between two people who may be part of a group, while group dynamics focuses on the processes that occur in groups (Ehrman and Dörnyei, 1998). Storch (2002; Storch and Aldosari, 2013) considered pairs working together and described the interaction in terms of equality (shared involvement in the task) and mutuality (the degree to which students engage with their partner’s ideas). Storch (2002) considered four patterns of interaction: collaborative (high equality/high mutuality), expert–novice (low equality/high mutuality), dominant–dominant (high equality/low mutuality), and dominant–passive (low equality/low mutuality).

Interpersonal dynamics are influenced by a myriad of variables, including the language used and the level of familiarity of interlocutors. In an example of the latter, Plough and Gass (1993) compared the performance of dyads consisting of members who had not met before, and dyads which included members that had met previously. They found that those unfamiliar with one another were more likely to experience discourse characterized as threatening, impeding collaboration. Other studies attribute less familiar task interlocutors to less willingness to communicate (Cao and Philp, 2006) and low levels of task engagement (Phung, 2017). Regarding the relative proficiency of interlocutors during task interaction, research has suggested task interaction involving at least one higher proficiency peer results in more collaborative interaction (e.g. Aubrey, 2018; Kim and McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004) and higher levels of engagement (e.g. Aubrey, 2017a, 2017b). To what extent these variables might affect interpersonal dynamics in the context of collaborative pre-task planning is not yet understood.

The Present Study

Conducted as part of a larger study that examined the relative effects of four forms of task preparation on L2 speech production (Lambert et al., 2020) and the relative benefits of planning in the L1 and L2 (Aubrey et al., 2020), this study examines dyadic pre-task planning discussions and learners’ subsequent individual oral L2 task performances to investigate how learners plan, their interpersonal dynamics, and their subsequent task performances. Each of the two dyads consisted of mixed-proficiency learners but differed in terms of the language (L1 or L2) used to plan. Three research questions are addressed:

Did planning behaviors differ between the learners who planned in the L1 and L2? If so, how did this impact planning?

Did interpersonal dynamics play a role in learners’ pre-task planning behavior? If so, how did this impact planning?

What factors facilitated and inhibited learners’ transfer of planned language to subsequent performance?

Methods

Participants

The study was conducted with EFL students in the school of economics in a university in Western Japan. Table 1 provides background information for each participant. This study adopted a multiple-case study design in order to present an in-depth look at the task planning and performance behavior of four learners. As Duff (2007: 53) explains, although case studies provide multiple perspectives and depth, the amount of data to be collected, analyzed, and reported can be overwhelming, and, therefore, relatively small numbers of participants are involved. Although some argue that this may limit generalizability, Duff (2007: 51) claims that “qualitative research, in this view, provides access to rich data about others’ experience that can facilitate understandings of one’s own as well as others’ contexts and lives, through both similarities and differences across settings or cases.”

Table 1.

Participants’ background information.

	Name	Age	Gender	TOEIC	CEFR	Year	Time abroad
L1 dyad	Mika	19	Female	830	B2	2	1 year
L1 dyad	Noriko	20	Female	595	B1	2	0
L2 dyad	Taka	20	Male	850	B2	3	0
L2 dyad	Masa	21	Male	570	B1	3	0

Note: TOEIC = Test of English for International Communication; CEFR = Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.

Participants were second- or third-year undergraduates majoring in economics, between 19 and 21 years of age. They were all L1 speakers of Japanese and had studied English for six years in secondary school. Participants were assigned to same-gender dyads with one higher proficiency interlocutor (Test of English for International Communication [TOEIC] B-Level or Common European Framework of Reference for Languages [CEFR] level B2) and one lower-level proficiency interlocutor (TOEIC C-Level or CEFR level B1) (Educational Testing Service, 2008). Same-sex pairs were chosen because students in this context have been observed to show a preference for same-sex grouping in the classroom (Leeming, 2014), and mixing gender has been shown to have an impact on task-based interaction (Ross-Feldman, 2007). All participants had taken an oral English course with the first author prior to the study.

Mika and Noriko (L2 Dyad, English Planners) were second-year students. Mika had studied in New Zealand during high school. She was confident and outgoing in regular classes, and also proficient in English (TOEIC 830, CEFR B2). Noriko had lower English proficiency (TOEIC 595, CEFR B1), was shy, and rarely spoke out in class. However, she was motivated to improve her spoken English because she was going to study in Canada after the study was conducted.

Masa and Taka (L1 Dyad, Japanese Planners) were third-year students. Taka had a higher proficiency score (TOEIC 850, CEFR B2) than Masa (TOEIC 570, CEFR B1). Taka was highly motivated to study English. He was active in English class and had an affable personality. He had no experience traveling abroad and no plans to travel abroad. Masa had recently transferred from a vocational college and was happy to be in a comparatively prestigious university. He was outgoing and tried hard to participate in English class. He had no experience studying abroad and also no plans to go abroad in the future.

Materials

Participants completed a “Dear Abby” problem–solution task that required them to collaboratively prepare a solution to a problem, and then individually deliver their response in an L2 oral performance. In preparation for the task, dyads were presented with a fictious letter outlining a problem that a university student like them was having with her part-time job (Appendix 1). A planning sheet (Appendix 2) was also provided to guide participants in planning the content for their task performance.

Procedures

Before the study, the procedures were piloted with similar learners to determine the appropriate length of time for task planning and task performance. The study was conducted in the first author’s office. Each dyad was given 10 minutes to complete the planning sheet. The L1 dyad completed the planning sheet using only their L1 and the L2 dyad completed it using only their L2. A single planning sheet and pen were placed between the students. Immediately after planning for 10 minutes, the students were taken to separate rooms and each had 2.5 minutes to complete the problem–solution task individually in English. Planning was video-recorded and task performances were audio-recorded. Following the task performance, individual stimulated recall interviews were conducted. Participants were shown the video of their planning, listened to their task performance, and they were encouraged to comment with some general questions (e.g. Were you happy with your planning/performance? Why or why not?).

Data Analyses

Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) of the planning transcripts and stimulated recall interviews were used to determine emergent themes in each category, which related to the language used, partner, and notes taken on the planning sheet, respectively. In order to examine the dynamics of the dyads, the planning transcripts were analyzed by the first and second authors for equality of interaction and mutuality (Storch, 2002). Concerning how planning related to task performances, the task performances were compared with the planning transcripts, focusing on content and language that was successfully (and unsuccessfully) transferred.

Results

Research Question 1 asked how planning behaviors differed between learners who planned in their L1 and their L2. The first difference between the dyads was in their use of the task input. As seen in Excerpt 1, the L1 dyad spent the first part of the discussion translating the letter and discussing the problem, while the L2 dyad did not attempt to clarify content and simply repeated the problem verbatim from the letter (all translations are provided in italics).

Excerpt 1.

Clarifying the problem.

	L1 dyad		L2 dyad
Taka:	彼女が働いているけれども、時間が、えっと She is working, but her time, umm	Mika:	The first question is “what is the cause of the problem” so. . .I think that is here. My boss never let me have time off.
Masa:	あのー Umm	Noriko:	Hm
Taka:	時間に余裕がないってことやんな It means she doesn’t have enough time, right?	Mika:	So, what should I write. . .should I write “Yuki’s boss never lets” or “her boss never lets”? That depends on you. We have to speak after this, so this memo can help you.
Masa:	そうやな、上司が Yes, the boss	Noriko:	Hm
Taka:	ここやな、 “never lets me have time off” やんな Here, “never lets me have time off” that is it.	Mika:	So, should I write “Yuki’s boss never lets me have time off” or “her boss never lets me have time off”?
Masa:	そうそう Right right.	Noriko:	(inaudible)
Taka:	えっと Well	Mika:	The problem is ah cause. . . cause. . . do you think this is the cause of the problem because the subject is. . . the problem is that. . .
Masa:	賃金高いけど、私のボスが一度も休みを	Noriko:	Hm
Taka:	She earns good wages, but the boss never lets her have time off.	Mika:	So, that must be a problem but actually I have no idea about the cause.
Masa:	高いけど休みをくれへんみたいな She earns good wages, but the boss never lets her have time off kind of thing.

The L1 dyad worked together to confirm the meaning of the text – as exemplified by Taka asking if his interpretation is correct concerning “time off”. The dyad interacted collaboratively to clarify understanding, repeat each other’s contributions, and come to a shared understanding of the content of the task. Interestingly, they also recycled collaboratively generated expressions and incorporated them into subsequent structures using their L1. This supports the notion that the L1 is being used as a social and cognitive tool (Anton and DiCamilla, 1998) to clarify language issues (Newton and Nguyen, 2019). In contrast, the L2 pair displays a lack of collaboration as they do not discuss what the problem is, but instead focus on how to write their answers on the planning sheet.

The second difference between the L1 and L2 planners was in the clarification of L2 vocabulary. The L1 learners in the study were much more engaged with clarifying the vocabulary than the L2 learners. This is evidenced in Excerpt 2, where learners deliberate the lexical items wage and rent. The more proficient dyad member (Masa) provides linguistic clarification. Such examples of metalinguistic discussions were conspicuously absent from the L2 dyad planning transcript.

Excerpt 2.

Clarifying vocabulary (L1 dyad).

Masa:	そやんな、この”wage”って学費やんな？Right. This “wage” means tuition fee?
Taka:	賃金やろNo, it means wage.
Masa:	この辺学費やろ？So this means tuition fee?
Taka:	ちゃうやろ、学費ちゃうやろ “rent”やからあの、家賃ちゃうNo, it is not tuition fee, it’s “rent”. Rent.
Masa:	あ、家賃かAhh, it means house rent.
Taka:	家賃と携帯代払ってるくらいやんShe just pays her rent and mobile bill.

Thus, in answer to Research Question 1, the L1 planners tended to engage more deeply than L2 planners with both the task content and the language. In particular, L1 planners did not limit the discussion to ideas provided in the input and they elaborated on the meaning of the vocabulary in the input text.

Research Question 2 asked whether interpersonal dynamics played a role in learners’ pre-task planning behavior and how they might impact their planning. As we have seen in Excerpt 1, the relationships that emerged between the two dyads were different. The relationship for the L1 dyad was collaborative, with high mutuality and equality (Storch, 2002). As they did not communicate in English, the disparity in proficiency did not limit them from engaging with one another’s ideas and collaboratively constructing content. In contrast, the relationship for the L2 dyad was dominant/passive (Storch, 2002), with the higher-proficiency learner becoming the dominant member (Mika), and lower-proficiency learner becoming the passive member (Noriko), whose primary role was to backchannel. Excerpt 3 shows the qualitative difference in the relationships.

Excerpt 3.

Relationship between dyad members.

	L1 dyad		L2 dyad
Masa:	とりあえず１を埋める？解決策So, for now, let’s think about the first solution.	Mika:	So, Yuki and Yuki’s boss . . . I think. . . what are the main events in the problem main events. . . god. . . ah maybe I think the problem is my schoolwork is suffering.
Taka:	解決策、転職するじゃない？The solution, how about to change her job?	Noriko:	Hm
Masa:	転職したらあかん、あのー賃金がりひんIt’s not good to change her job because the wages might decrease.	Mika:	And
Taka:	違う違う、じゃあここを埋めればいいんちゃうNo, you can write it as the disadvantage.	Noriko:	And?
Masa:	あー、OK OKAhh, OK, OK.	Mika:	The cause is here because she has to work every weekend for six months. . . she didn’t take time off because of the boss.
Taka:	改善されるけどLike the problem might be solved, but. . .	Noriko:	Hm
Masa:	あーなるほど、それはいいAhh, I see. That’s a good idea.	Mika:	So main events must be this one because Yuki said she doesn’t want to be disappointed. . . her parents. . . so this one must be.

As shown, Masa, the lower-proficiency learner in the L1 dyad, initiates and closes the interaction. He provides more ideas to the developing discourse and uses discourse markers that are affiliative rather than simple acknowledgements of comprehension. He negatively evaluates the proposed solution from Taka, but throughout the mutuality and equality are clear as both students connect with and respond to their interlocutor’s previous comment (Storch, 2002). The L2 dyad shows a very different pattern, with the lower-proficiency partner, Noriko, adding little content, despite encouragement from Mika.

Mika and Noriko attempted to explain their relationship in their respective stimulated recall interviews. Noriko admitted that she was passive, using the expression makasesugita (I relied too heavily on my partner) to explain her behavior. She claimed that she had ideas, but was unable to find the English to express them. Mika discussed at length the impact that her partner had on her own behavior (see Excerpt 4). She claimed that Noriko was passive, and that this had forced her into a dominant role during planning, attributing this to a lack of familiarity.

Excerpt 4.

Mika’s stimulated recall interview.

Mika:	So, erm not not easy to talk that much. . . because like, erm, Noriko um, I, I sometimes talk to Noriko because I sometimes have the same class as her sometimes but like, and she is not like really active.
Interviewer:	Kind of shy, quiet?
Mika:	Quiet. Or if maybe Noriko’s best friend or closer friend than me maybe better.

For learners in the L1 dyad, the collaborative relationship was also discussed as being a factor in how the planning interaction unfolded, as illustrated in Excerpt 5.

Excerpt 5.

Taka’s stimulated recall interview.

Interviewer:	Was it easy to work with Masa?
Taka:	The closer the friend the better. . . If I think we get on well, we work smoothly together and share the same knowledge

These findings underscore the importance of familiar interlocutors in facilitating collaborative interactions (Cao and Philp, 2006; Phung, 2017; Plough and Gass, 1993).

In answer to Research Question 2, interpersonal dynamics played a role in planning, with the collaborative L1 planning pair working together to produce ideas. In contrast, the dominant–passive relationship established between the L2 planners meant that there was almost no contribution to the planning from one of the participants.

Research Question 3 asked what factors facilitated and inhibited learners’ transfer of planned language. Firstly, the lower-proficiency learners in both dyads benefited from collaborating with higher-proficiency learners as they were able to transfer their partner’s planned content. An example of this from the L2 dyad is shown in Excerpt 6.

Excerpt 6.

Transfer from L2 planning to performance.

	Planning discussion		Task performances
Mika:	A student have problem with part time job. . . maybe. . . first decide on three solutions	Mika:	And I want suggest you some solutions and then one thing is quitting part time job¹. . . and having advantage is she can have time off²
Noriko:	Solutions	Noriko:	I think she she should retire part time job²
Mika:	Solutions is quit the part time job¹ or something. . . because she want to have time off² right?
Noriko:	Hm
Mika:	So quit part time job.¹ Do you have any ideas?
Noriko:	(laughs)

Note: Superscripts “1” and “2” denotes content/language generated during planning and transferred to task performances.

In the planning, Mika is the only dyad member to provide a solution to the task problem (quit part-time job) and a reason for her solution (have time off), which she uses in her task performance. Interestingly, Noriko did make use of Mika’s planned solution, which suggests that lower-proficiency students benefit from being paired with a stronger student. This observation reflects claims from collaborative planning studies grounded in socio-cultural theory (e.g. Lee and Burch, 2017), and also underscores the benefits of mixed-proficiency collaborations (e.g. Aubrey, 2018; Kim and McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004). The transfer for Noriko was partial, however, as she was unable to remember the lexical item that her partner used, and instead of “quit” used “retire”. For Noriko, transfer was further inhibited by affective factors. Noriko did not make use of the second planned idea (“have time off”, Excerpt 6), which she noted in the interview (Excerpt 7).

Excerpt 7.

Noriko’s stimulated recall interview.

Noriko:	I didn’t use this part (points at advantages written on planning sheet)
Interviewer:	You didn’t use this, could you not remember?
Mika:	I was nervous

Noriko attributed her inability to recall planned content to nervousness, which supports Bui and Teng’s (2018) claim that affective factors interfere with the transfer of planned content to performance.

For the L1 dyad, Masa and Taka shared the development of ideas in planning and were able to use some planned content in their task performances, as shown in Excerpt 8.

Excerpt 8.

Transfer from L1 planning to performance.

	Planning discussion		Task performance
Taka:	一番リアルなんじゃないの？ I think this is the most realistic?	Taka:	. . . she can change job¹. . . that changing job¹ is I think best
Masa:	やっぱ転職？¹ To change the job? ¹	Masa:	. . .. possible solution is first change her job¹. . . I recommend one is I recommend change her job¹
Taka:	丸くない？この辺結構難しくない？I think it is the easiest solution. The other two ones are too hard to do.
Masa:	まぁ、確かになあ、転職かなぁ、とりあえずThat is true. To change her job¹ should be a good solution.
Taka:	ちょっと心のゆとりが大切やからなあ、お金はちょっと諦めようShe needs to relax her mind first. She should give up money for now.

Note: Superscript “1” denotes content/language generated during planning and transferred to task performances.

However, there was much planned content that the L1 dyad did not use in their task performances. Excerpts 9 and 10 show examples of solutions generated by the L1 dyad, which failed to transfer to task performance.

Excerpt 9.

Solutions generated in planning but not used in performance for L1 dyads.

Taka:	そうそう、-こ、こ　交渉するYes yes. -nego, nego negotiate with the boss
Masa:	訴えるTo sue
Taka:	訴えるはちゃうやろ、だって別におかしくないやんIt is not appropriate to sue because the boss didn’t do anything wrong
Masa:	上に文句言うTo complain to the other boss

Excerpt 10.

Solutions generated in planning but not used in performance for L1 dyads.

Masa:	何かないかな. . .-かわあのーなんか、代わりを呼ぶ. あの、代理を用意しておくみたいなAnything else?. . . the umm, well, to find someone to fill in for her. Ah, to find someone who can cover her shift.
Taka	代理. . . あーあの変わってくれる子を探すってこと？Replacement. . . Ah, to find someone who can work instead of her?
Masa:	そうそうYes.
Taka:	えーっと、代理で働いてくれる人を探して、えっと交互にってことやんな？To find who can work instead of her, and well, they will take turns working, right?

The planned ideas of negotiating, suing, and finding a shift replacement, which did not transfer, are relatively complex and may have been challenging to use in task performances. This suggests that L1 discussions result in ambitious planned content that is difficult for learners to encode in the L2 and articulate during task performances (Aubrey et al., 2020).

Another key factor impacting the transfer from planning to performance was the practice of notetaking. As stated previously, a single sheet and pen were placed between the participants. In the L2 dyad, Mika took the role of scribe, making notes in English. In the interview, Mika stated that writing would help her to remember the information for the subsequent speaking task. In the L1 dyad, Taka took on the notetaking duties, writing in Japanese. In discussing the role of writing, Taka explained in the stimulated recall interview: “you kind of remember what you wrote, I wrote down what I said and I had prepared for the task, but Masa couldn’t remember what had been written.” This observation supports the notion that notetaking during collaboration can facilitate recall at a later time (Aubrey, 2020; Ortega, 2005).

Not all content used in task performances was transferred from planning. In fact, an important factor that determined successful task performance was a learners’ ability to plan “online” during the task when pre-planned content/language was not available. Excerpt 11 illustrates, for each learner, content that was not generated during planning but produced during task performances.

Excerpt 11.

Unplanned content generated during task performance.

L1 dyad		L2 dyad
Taka	Masa	Mika	Noriko
. . .company which she can work get happy maybe she can decrease the metal stressshe can give. . .working any part-time jobif if she can get holiday uh free time she get hobby	N/A	Ask her parents to help youShe can search another part time jobSo, ask someone different and get a new staff	I think she can new job

As can be seen, the higher-proficiency learner in each dyad used more unplanned content during performances, while lower-proficiency learners struggled to generate content. These observations support the argument that the effects of strategic planning on task performances can be overridden by proficiency (Bui, 2014).

In answer to Research Question 3, factors that seemed to facilitate transfer for the learners in the study were mixed-proficiency pairs and notetaking. Factors that impeded transfer were nervousness and the complexity of content planned in the L1.

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications

This paper has provided a detailed description of the pre-task collaborative planning processes of two mixed-proficiency dyads who planned in the L1 and L2, respectively. It has shown how planning aided subsequent individual task performances. Several of the observations might provide insights that would be of use to teachers in optimizing collaborative planning. First, it was found that planning in the L1 resulted in more collaborative patterns of interaction, more clarification of task content, more metalinguistic discussion, and the generation of more sophisticated solutions to the task problem. However, planned content/language in the L1 did not seem to transfer to task performances as successfully as planned content/language in the L2. One instructional implication of this is that teachers may want to provide opportunities for learners to plan both in the L1 and L2 so that they generate sufficiently complex ideas and also practice articulating those ideas in the L2 in preparation for performance. Second, there is evidence that the transfer of content/language is aided by written notes. Teachers may encourage notetaking on the part of all students during planning as this can make key content more salient, assisting in subsequent recall. Third, the study points to the importance of allocating learners to pairs and groups in language classes (Imaz Agirre and Garcia-Mayo, 2020). In the present study, high interlocutor familiarity seemed to create more collaborative interactions. Thus, in some cases, allowing learners to choose their own partner for planning may help to avoid anxious collaborations between learners who are unfamiliar with each other. In other cases, assigning learners to groups may be advisable in terms of language use (Imaz Agirre and Garcia-Mayo, 2020). It is critical that teachers remain sensitive to learners’ needs in relationship to instructional goals and do not adopt one-size-fits all solutions to pre-task planning procedures. Finally, the success of task performances was partially determined by L2 proficiency, with higher-proficiency learners being able to plan “online” and generate content/language during tasks. If teachers want to assist lower-proficiency learners to recall their planning (and alleviate their anxiety), one suggestion is to provide an option for them to make use of planning notes during task performances.

Although this research is limited by the small number of participants from a specific context, it is hoped that the rich description will allow readers to generalize to their own contexts (Duff, 2007). While it may be argued, for example, that Noriko displayed behaviors that were particularly unresponsive during the planning session, most classroom teachers have experienced students like Noriko in their own teaching, and this research highlights the need to respond appropriately to individual students when making pedagogical decisions in the classroom, and also the need to identify individual differences in planning behavior. Future research should investigate the processes involved during task planning, and how they link to task performance in a wider range of contexts, and with larger numbers of participants.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2 Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We are grateful for a grant from the Research and Innovation Support Program of the School of Education, Curtin University.

ORCID iDs

Paul Leeming

Scott Aubrey

References

Anton

DiCamilla

(1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review 54(3): 314–342.

Aubrey

(2017a) Measuring flow in the EFL classroom: learners’ perceptions of inter- and intra-cultural task-based interactions. TESOL Quarterly 51(3): 661–692.

Aubrey

(2017b) Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research 21(6): 717–734.

Aubrey

(2018) The impact of intra-cultural and inter-cultural task repetition on interaction. In: Bygate

(ed.) Language Learning through Task Repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 117–142.

Aubrey

(2020) The role of task-based interaction in perceived language learning in a Japanese EFL classroom. In: Lambert

Oliver

(eds) Using Tasks in Second Language Teaching: Practice in Diverse Contexts. Multilingual Matters, 281–305.

Aubrey

Lambert

Leeming

(2020) The impact of first as opposed to second language pre-task planning on the content of problem-solving task performance. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 1 June. DOI: 10.1177/1362168820917844

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Bui

Teng

(2018) Exploring learners’ self-reported behavioral patterns in two task-readiness conditions: A qualitative study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 42(2): 129–149.

Bui

HYG

(2014) Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In: Skehan

(ed) Processing Perspectives on Task Performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 63–94.

10.

Cao

Philp

(2006) Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System 34(4): 480–493.

11.

Carless

(2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly 38(4): 639–662.

12.

Cook

(2001) Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review 57(3): 402–423.

13.

Duff

(2007) Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis

14.

Educational Testing Service (2008) TOEIC test data and analysis 2007: Number of examinees and scores in FY2007. Tokyo: The Institute for International Business Corporation, TOEIC Steering Committee.

15.

Ehrman

Dörnyei

(1998) Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language Education: The Visible and Invisible Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

16.

Ellis

(2012) Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

17.

Ellis

(2018) Reflections on Task-Based Language Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

18.

Foster

Skehan

(1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(3): 299–324.

19.

Imaz Agirre

Garcia-Mayo

(2020) The impact of agency in pair formation on the degree of participation in young learners’ collaborative dialogue. In: Lambert

Oliver

(eds) Using Tasks in Second Language Teaching: Practice in Diverse Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

20.

Kim

McDonough

(2008) The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research 12(2): 211–234.

21.

Lambert

Aubrey

Leeming

(2020) Task preparation and second language speech production. TESOL Quarterly 49(1): 38–66.

22.

Larsen-Freeman

Anderson

(2011) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23.

Lee

Burch

(2017) Collaborative planning in process: An ethnomethodological perspective. TESOL Quarterly 51(3): 536–575.

24.

Leeming

(2011) Japanese high school students’ use of the L1 during pair-work. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 21(3): 360–382.

25.

Leeming

(2014) Group formation and longevity in the foreign language classroom: students’ views. The Journal of Asia TEFL 11(3): 105–132.

26.

Leeming

(2019) Emergent leadership and group interaction in the task-based language classroom. TESOL Quarterly 53(3): 768–793.

27.

Leeser

(2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research 8(1): 55–81.

28.

Chen

Sun

(2015) The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly 49(1): 38–66.

29.

Mehnert

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

30.

Newton

Nguyen

BTT

(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.

31.

O’Grady

(2019) The impact of pre-task planning on speaking test performance for English-medium university admission. Language Testing 36(4): 505–526.

32.

Oliver

Nguyen

(2017) Translanguaging on Facebook: Exploring Australian aboriginal multilingual competence in technology-enhanced environments and its pedagogical implications. The Canadian Modern Language Review 73(4): 463–487.

33.

Ortega

(2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In: Ellis

(ed) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 77–109.

34.

Pang

Skehan

(2014) Self-reported planning behaviour and L2 performance in narrative retelling. In: Skehan

(ed) Processing Perspectives on Task Performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 95–128.

35.

Phung

(2017) Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research 21(6): 651–666.

36.

Plough

Gass

(1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity effects on interaction structure. In: Crookes

Gass

(eds) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and Practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 95–122.

37.

Ross-Feldman

(2007) Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In: Mackey

(ed) Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52–77.

38.

Saeedi

(2015) Unguided planning, task structure and L2 oral performance: Focusing on complexity, accuracy and fluency. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 2(4): 263–274.

39.

Skehan

(2018) Second Language Task based Performance: Theory, Research, and Assessment. New York, NY: Routledge

40.

Storch

(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52(1): 119–158.

41.

Storch

Aldosari

(2013) Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research 17(1): 31–48.

42.

Truong

Storch

(2007) Investigating group planning in preparation for oral presentations in an EFL class in Vietnam. RELC Journal 38(1): 104–124.