First Language Literacy and Second Language Oracy: A Partial Replication of Foster and Skehan (1996)

Abstract

This article responds to calls for greater inclusivity in second language acquisition research and, more specifically, to calls to explore further the impact of first language literacy on second language oracy (e.g., Tarone et al., 2009). We conducted a partial replication of Foster and Skehan's (1996) influential study of task complexity, planning time, and performance over measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The initial study and others had provided robust evidence to suggest that planning time had a positive impact on task performance, particularly for more cognitively demanding tasks. We conducted our replication with adult second language learners with low first language literacy, most of whom were former refugees. Contrary to previous studies, the findings indicate little to no evidence that planning time led to improved linguistic performance. It is not immediately clear why this should be so, and our findings highlight the need for further research with this underrepresented group.

Uncovering Sampling Biases, Advancing Inclusivity, and Rethinking Theoretical Accounts in Second Language Acquisition: Introduction to the Special Issue SLA for All?

“…Ryan et al. (2023) replicated a foundational study in task‐based language teaching by Foster and Skehan. Using a WEIRD sample of part‐time English language students in the United Kingdom, Foster and Skehan (1996) found that the addition of pretask planning increased the linguistic quality of speech performance, a finding that many authors have replicated since.…”

“…The authors speculated that differences in proficiency may have been one of the important causes of the differences found. Ryan and colleagues (2023) did not reproduce the positive effect that planning time was found to have on task performance by Foster and Skehan (1996). And finally, Zinszer and colleagues (2023) did not find the hypothesized effect between statistical learning and literacy that Arciuli and Simpson (2012) observed and that Qi et al.…”

“…Additionally, many authors could not resist the temptation of including better measures, developed between the initial study and the replication. Ryan and colleagues (2023), for example, were able to measure breakdown fluency (speech pauses) with more accuracy thanks to new technology, and, as highlighted before, Kim and colleagues (2023) adopted a more elaborate scheme for coding awareness. Authors were transparent in reporting these changes.…”

“…The team of Ryan et al. (2023) benefited from insider knowledge from Pauline Foster, who was an author in the initial study and the replication. They updated outdated materials and made them contextually appropriate to the former‐refugee context in New Zealand.…”

(Why) Are Open Research Practices the Future for the Study of Language Learning?

“…An additional benefit of registered reports is that the peer review of the proposed study, which may include the author(s) of the initial study, can help researchers to conceive the most valid and reliable replication design, addressing the challenges illustrated above of deciding the methods for replicating a study (for an example from the SLA for all? initiative, see Ryan et al., 2023).…”