FLTA Meeting Nov. 12, 2004 Akiko Fujii <

University of Tokyo English Language Program,

InternationalChristianUniversity

Ph.D. Program, GeorgetownUniversity

Aptitude profiles and individual differences in language production

in task-based interaction in the EFL classroom

FLTA Meeting Nov. 12, 2004 Akiko Fujii <

University of Tokyo English Language Program,

InternationalChristianUniversity

Ph.D. Program, GeorgetownUniversity

1. Language production (Output) and Language Learning

1.1 The Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995)

1.2 Tasks

1.3 Dimensions of language production

Fluency

Accuracy

Complexity

1.4 Limited attentional capacity

2. Research Question

How are individual differences related to foreign language aptitude profiles?

3. Method

3.1 Participants – 15 first year university EFL learners

3.2 Setting – Academic speaking class

3.3 Design

3.3.1 Constructs

  • Foreign language aptitude (Robinson, 2002; Skehan, 202)

Language analytic ability (LABJ) (Sasaki, 1996)

Working Memory :

Phonological short-term memory

Working memory (L1, L2)

  • Language production

Fluency

Accuracy

Complexity (Syntactic, Verb Forms)

3.3.2 Materials

Foreign language aptitude test battery

Tasks

T1 -Opinion Gap Task

T2- Information Gap task

T3 –Decision-making task

3.4 Procedure

  • One 10-week term
  • Aptitude Test Battery (Week 11)
  • Task-based interaction (Weeks 4-10)

4. Analysis

4.1 Scoring and Coding

4.1.1 Aptitude test battery

4.1.2 Language Production

  1. Fluency – Syllables per minute
  2. Accuracy – error-free clauses
  3. Complexity
  4. Subordination - Clauses per t-unit

2. Variety of verb forms

4.2 Description of means

4.3 Qualitative analysis

5. Preliminary Results

5.1 Aptitude profiles

5.2 Fluency

5.3 Accuracy

5.4 Complexity

5.5 Multiple priorities

6. Discussion

6.1 Fluency and aptitude

6.2 Accuracy and aptitude

6.3 Accuracy and aptitude and tasks

6.4 Complexity and aptitude components

6.5 Multiple priorities and attention/ intention

7. Further directions

7.1 More data

7.2 Finer-grained analysis of accuracy

7.3 Qualitative analysis of learner language

7.4 Relative priorities for each learner

7.5 Wilcoxon Rank Sums/ Mann Whitney U

Selected References

Ellis, R.(2003). Task-based language learning and teaching.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 299-323.

Hemmert, A., & O’Connell, G. (1998). Communicating on campus.Burlingame, CA: AltaBookCenter.

Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387-417.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Mackey, A. , Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson & P. Skehan (Eds.), Individual differences in L2 learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83-108.

Robinson, P. (2002b). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.),Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp.113-136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationship between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.) Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.119-140). Harlow, England: Pearson Education

Sasaki, M. (1996). Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence: Quantitative and qualitative analysis.New York: Peter Lang.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. OxfordUniversity Press.

Skehan, P. (2002) Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.),Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69-94).Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.