Research on pre-task planning to date has mainly focused on task performance. However, the effects of planning are contingent on what learners actually do during planning time. One important factor that may determine the quality and usefulness of planning is whether it is done in the first language (L1) or the second language (L2). This research addresses this issue by investigating the relative benefits of collaborative planning in the L1 and L2 in terms of ideas generated and transferred to an oral problem-solving task. Seventy-two Japanese university EFL learners were randomly assigned to one of two planning conditions: L1P (L1 planning, Japanese) and L2P (L2 planning, English). Dyads in each group were given 10 minutes to plan the content of a problem-solving task in the respective languages before individually performing the timed 2.5-minute oral task. Data took the form of transcribed planning discussions and transcribed task performances. All data were coded for idea units and sorted into categories of problem–solution discourse structure (situation, problem, response, evaluation). A qualitative comparison of L1 and L2 planners’ generation of idea units during planning, transfer and performance was conducted to supplement the quantitative analysis. Findings indicate the L1P condition has significant advantages over the L2P condition in terms of idea conceptualization, but this advantage had a limited impact on subsequent L2 task performance. Pedagogical implications are discussed in terms of possibilities for productively incorporating L1 planning during task implementation in foreign language contexts where learners share a common first language.
AhmadianM.J.MansouriA. (2020). Collaborative L1 planning and L2 written task performance in an Iranian EFL context. In LambertC.OliverR. (Eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching (pp. 237–254). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
2.
AhmadianM.J.TavakoliM. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research15: 23–49.
3.
AntonM.DiCamillaF. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–342.
4.
BuiG.TengM. (2018). Exploring learners’ self-reported behavioral patterns in two task-readiness conditions: A qualitative study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41, 129–149.
5.
Centeno-CortésB.Jiménez JiménezA. (2004). Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: The importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 7–35.
6.
ChafeW.L. (1980). The development of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In ChafeW.L. (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 9–49). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
CookV. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57: 402–423.
9.
DateM. (2019). The effects of a first task performance in L1 during practice using task repetition for developing L2 speaking skill. Unpublished paper presented on 26 November at ALAA2019, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
10.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: LantolfJ.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
11.
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.
12.
EllisR. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
13.
EllisR. (2018). Reflections on task-based language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
14.
EllisR.BarkhuizenG. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
EllisR.YuanF. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language learning (pp. 167–192). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
16.
EllisR.SkehanP.LiS.ShintaniN.LambertC. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
18.
FordK. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese University EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 31: 63–80.
19.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.
20.
HoeyM. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: George, Allen and Unwin.
21.
HoeyM. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
22.
JonesS.TetroeJ. (1987). Composing in a second language. In MatsuhashiA. (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modelling production processes (pp. 34–57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
23.
JordanM.P. (1984). Rhetoric of everyday English texts. London: George Allen and Unwin.
24.
KelloggR.T. (1996). A model of working memory on writing. In LevyC.M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
KormosJ. (2006). Speech production and L2 acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
LallyC.G. (2000). First language influences in second language composition: The effect of pre-writing. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 428–432.
27.
LambertC. (2017). Tasks, affect and second language performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 657–664.
28.
LambertC.MinnD. (2007). Personal investment in L2 task design: A case study of two Japanese learners of English. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 7, 127–148.
29.
LambertC.RobinsonP. (2014). Learning to perform narrative task: A semester long study of task sequencing effects. In MaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 207–230). London: Bloomsbury.
30.
LambertC.ZhangG. (2019). Engagement in the use of English and Chinese as second languages: The role of learner-generated content in instructional task design. Modern Language Journal, 103, 391–411.
31.
LambertC.KormosJ.MinnD. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 167–196.
32.
LambertC.PhilpJ.NakamuraS. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680.
33.
Larsen-FreemanD.AndersonM. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. 3rd edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
LeeJ.BurchA.R. (2017). Collaborative planning in process: An ethnomethodological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 536–575.
35.
LeveltW. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
36.
LeveltW. (1999). Producing the language: A blueprint of the speaker. In BrownC.HagoortP. (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). New York: Oxford Press.
37.
LiL.ChenJ.SunL. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 38–66.
38.
LiS. (2019). The construct of task anxiety. Unpublished paper presented on 25 November at ALAA2019, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
39.
ManchónR.M.de LariosJ.R. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning, 57, 540–593.
40.
MarkeeN.KunitzS. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63, 629–664.
41.
MehnertU. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.
MyersR. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications. 2nd edition. Boston, MA: Duxbury.
44.
NemethN.KormosJ. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: The case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 213–240.
45.
OliverR.NguyenB. (2017). Translanguaging on Facebook: Exploring Australian Aboriginal multilingual competence in technology-enhanced environments and its pedagogical implications. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 73: 463–487.
46.
OrtegaL. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In: EllisR. (Ed.) Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
47.
PangF.SkehanP. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and L2 performance in narrative retelling. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
48.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is big? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
49.
ReinemanJ. (2002). Using the first language in second language instruction. TESL EJ Forum (online). Available at: https://www.tesl-ej.org/ej20/f1.html (April 2020).
50.
RiversD. (2010). An exploration of on-task language policy and student satisfaction. ELT Journal, 64, 261–271.
51.
SaeediM. (2015). Unguided planning, task structure and L2 oral performance: Focusing on complexity, accuracy and fluency. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2, 263–274.
52.
SamudaV.BygateM. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
SkehanP. (2014). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In SkehanP. (Eds.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
55.
SkehanP. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, and assessment. New York: Routledge
56.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
57.
StapaS.H.MajidA. (2009). The use of first language in developing ideas in second language writing. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 41–47.
58.
TabachnickB.G.FidellL.S. (2005) Using multivariate statistics. 5th Edition.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
59.
TavakoliP. (2009). Investigating task difficulty: learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25.
60.
TavakoliP.FosterP. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.
61.
TruongT.A.StorchN. (2007). Investigating group planning in preparation for oral presentations in an EFL class in Vietnam. RELC Journal, 38, 104–124.
62.
WangZ. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
63.
WillisD.WillisJ. (2012). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64.
WinterE. (1986). Clause relations as information structure: two basic text structures in English. In CoulthardM. (Ed.), Talking about text: Studies presented to David Brazil on his retirement (pp. 88–108). Discourse Analysis Monographs No 13. Birmingham: ELR, University of Birmingham.
65.
WuJ. (2019). The effect of pre-task planning on L2 argumentative writing. Unpublished paper presented on 26 November at ALAA2019, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
