the effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency...

8/6/2019 The Effects of Simultaneous Use of Careful Online Planning and Task Repetition on Accuracy, Fluency and Complex

1/25

LANGUAGE

TEACHING

RESEARCH

Corresponding author:

Mohammad Javad Ahmadian, Department of English, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan,

Hezar Jirib Street, Isfahan, 81746-7344, Iran

Email: [email protected]

Language Teaching Research

15(1) 3559

The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permissions: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1362168810383329http://ltr.sagepub.com

The effects of simultaneoususe of careful online planningand task repetition onaccuracy, complexity, andfluency in EFL learnersoral production

Mohammad Javad Ahmadian and Mansoor TavakoliUniversity of Isfahan, Iran

AbstractThis article reports on a study that was primarily aimed at investigating the effects of simultaneous

use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in the oral

production of learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). The effects of four planning andtask repetition conditions (i.e. careful online planning without task repetition, pressured online

planning with task repetition, careful online planning with task repetition, and pressured online

planning without task repetition) on learners accuracy, complexity, and fluency in producing

English language were investigated. Iranian intermediate-level EFL learners (n = 60) were randomly

selected and assigned to the four task conditions. The results obtained from one-way ANOVAs

revealed that the opportunity to engage simultaneously in careful online planning and task

repetition enhances accuracy, complexity, and fluency significantly. The obtained results also have

some implications for teachers and practitioners in EFL context.

Keywordsaccuracy, careful online planning, complexity, EFL context, fluency, task repetition

I Introduction

Planning is indispensable to language production. Even the most careless and speeded

speech or writing involves a degree of planning (Ellis, 2005). When it comes to second


2/25

36 Language Teaching Research 15(1)

language production, the importance of planning (be it within-task planning or task

repetition) is even more highlighted as both empirical and anecdotal evidence confirm

that planning impacts on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of second language (L2)

learners. In the meantime, increasing accuracy, complexity, and fluency of language per-formance is desirable and difficult to achieve. The difficulty may derive from the fact

that from the perspective of information processing theory our attentional capacity is

limited and selective (Anderson, 1995; Schmidt, 2001). Consequently, attending to one

dimension of performance (e.g. accuracy) may have detrimental effects on other facets

of performance (e.g. fluency) (Skehan, 1996, 1998). The issue of trade-off between form

and meaning as well as the urge to enhance all dimensions of language performance has

caused second language acquisition (SLA) researchers to study the effects of different

procedural options such as careful online planning and task repetition on aspects of lan-

guage production. The study reported in this article examined the effects of simultaneous

use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency

of EFL (English as a foreign language) learners oral production.

To date, a number of studies have researched into the effects of careful online plan-

ning and task repetition on second language oral performance (see Ellis, 2008 for an

updated and informative review). Overall, these studies point to the beneficial effects for

both careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency

with some trade-off effects being reported. However, the effects of simultaneous use of

careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency have not

been investigated so far. This study was aimed at covering this lacuna.

II Theoretical background

1 Careful online planning

SLA researchers have studied the notion of planning with reference to models of speech

production (Ellis, 1994, 2008). The most frequently used and cited model of speech pro-

duction research is Levelts (1989) model. The mechanisms that underlie speech produc-

tion as conceptualized by Levelt could be reduced to one sentence: People producespeech first by conceptualizingthe message, then byformulatingits language represen-

tation (i.e. encoding it), and finally by articulatingit (Kormos, 2006, p. 7; emphasis

added). Speech production system is also equipped with a self-monitoring mechanism

(Levelt, 1989; Scovel, 1998). This mechanism enables the speaker to monitor his or her

production prior to articulation and to reformulate his or her speech if/when necessary.

In other words, the speaker engages in what Kormos (2006, p. 123) refers to as covert

repair and carefully plans his or her speech online.

Different types of planning are distinguished in terms of when the planning occurs

(Ellis, 2005, 2008). Careful online planning (COLP) takes place online, during task per-formance and at the formulation stage of the Levelts three-staged model. It is distin-

guished from pressured online planning (POLP) in that in the former language learners

have ample time to plan their speech and make use of the allotted time to carefully attend

to their performance, whereas in the latter language learners are required to produce


3/25

Ahmadian and Tavakoli 37

language under time pressure (Ellis & Yuan, 2005). Careful online planning is conceptually

characterized as the process by which speakers attend carefully to the formulation stage

during speech planning and engage in pre-production and post-production monitoring of

their speech acts (Yuan & Ellis, 2003, p. 6). As an important variable in this study care-ful online planning was operationalized in two complementary ways:

by providing careful online planners with ample time for task completion to

formulate and monitor their language; and

by requiring all participants (COLP as well as POLP) to start task performance

straight away.

This latter measure is usually taken in careful online planning studies so as to control for

participants engagement in strategic planning.

In keeping with Yuan and Ellis (2003), in this study it was hypothesized that careful

online planning and pressured online planning may have significant impacts on EFL

learners accuracy and complexity of oral production. This is because, when language

learners are restricted in terms of time, the meaning-centered nature of the tasks induces

them to prioritize meaning over form. Since learners attentional resources are both

limited and selective, when they focus on message conveyance, they would be left with

scant attentional capacity to attend to form. On the contrary, when there is no time restric-

tion, learners cantake time to attend to form and to formulate more accurate structuresand correct the inaccurate ones in the formulation phase, prior to articulation (Levelt,

1989). Nevertheless, careful online planning is detrimental to fluency (Ellis & Yuan,2004). Perhaps because, as Van Patten (1990, p. 269) argues, conscious attention to

form, which is responsible for accuracy and/or complexity, competes with conscious

attention to meaning, which is responsible for fluency.

Careful online planning has been the subject of a series of studies (see Table 1 for a

summary of online planning studies). In their pioneering study, Hulstijn and Hulstijn

(1984) asked 32 learners of L2 Dutch to perform short oral narratives under four condi-

tions involving combination of two variables, namely time and focal attention. The

results of their study suggested that when learners used the time at their disposal to attend

to the formulation of linguistic forms their production of word order became more accu-rate. In another study, Ellis (1987) compared the accuracy of learners performance on

written and oral narrative tasks based on pictures. The two important variables investi-

gated in his study were careful online planning and strategic planning. Accuracy was

measured in terms of regular and irregular past tense. Ellis found that learners produced

the rule-governed past tense verbs such as helped most accurately when they had the

opportunity to engage in both OLP and strategic planning and least accurately when they

did not engage in either OLP or strategic planning.

More recently, building on Ellis (1987), Yuan and Ellis (2003) compared the effects

of pre-task and careful online planning on learners accuracy, complexity, and fluency inperforming a narrative task. Results of their study indicated that careful online planners

who were allowed to take more time for task competition produced both more accurate

and complex language. Yuan and Ellis (2003) aptly reason that when participants per-

form a task under time pressure, the working memory system uses the limited time to


4/25


access lexical information from long-term memory, but when they perform without any

time pressure, they can access syntactic information too. They also found that the pre-

task planning groups produced more fluent language than the online planning groups.

According to Yuan and Ellis (2003, p. 17):

the slower production rate on the part of the online planners can be taken as an indication

that the OLP groups were engaged more fully in searching their linguistic repertoires and in

monitoring their speech production.

From this perspective, then, results of their study lend support to the notion of limited

and selective attentional capacity.

On the basis of the psycholinguistic issues discussed and the results of these studies,

it could be hypothesized that providing EFL learners with ample time for careful online

planning may enhance the accuracy and complexity of their oral production. Nonethe-

less, there are two important questions that have not yet been addressed and are the focus

of this study:

whether or not careful online planning has any effect on oral language production

when it is used in tandem with task repetition; and

whether or not building repetition into tasks will compensate for the dysfluency

which naturally results from learners engagement in careful online planning.

These two questions will be restated with their corresponding predictions in Section III.

2 Task repetition

Task repetition is essentially a kind of planning (Ellis, 2005, 2008) that refers to repeti-

tion of the same or slightly altered task whether the whole tasks, or parts of a task

(Bygate & Samuda, 2005, p. 43). Task repetition is said to be particularly useful to

increase learners fluency and complexity (Bygate, 2001). Probably because when learners

already know:

what they are going to talk or write about they have more processing space available for formu-

lating the language needed to express their ideas with the result that the quantity of the output

will be enhanced and also the fluency and complexity. (Ellis, 2003, pp. 24647)

It was pointed out that according to Levelts (1989) speech production model speakers

go through three stages of conceptualization, formulation, and articulation, which in

reality overlap each other. The first stage, conceptualization, concerns selection of the

related information to be expressed, ordering the selected information for expression,and keeping track of what just has been said (Levelt, 1989). The product of this stage

is what Levelt (1989) calls preverbal message, which is the overall meaning to be

communicated.


5/25


Table1

Summaryofthestudiesconducted

oncarefulonlineplanning

Study

Participants

Designof

thestudy

Thetaskused

Targetstructure

Thevariablesinvolv

ed

Results

Hulstijn&

Hulstijn

(1984)

32adultlearners

ofL2Dutch

Between-

groups

Oralnarrative

Wordorder

Timeandfocalattention

(IVs);Accuracy(DV

)

Time+attention

toform=

moreaccurate

Ellis(1987)

17intermediate

ESLlearners

Repeated-

measures

Writtenand

oralnarrative

Regularand

irregular

pasttensefo

rms

Onlineplanning(OLP)and

strategicplanning(IVs);

Accuracy(DV)

Learnerslanguagewasmost

accuratewhentheyhadthe

opportunitytoen

gageinboth

OLPandstrategic

planning

andleastaccurate

whenthey

didnotengagein

eitherOLP

orstrategicplanning

Yuan&Ellis

(2003)

42EFLlearners

Between-

groups

Oralnarrative

Generalacc

uracy,

fluency,and

complexitymeasures

Onlineplanningand

pre-task

planning(IVs);Accu

racy,

fluency,andcomple

xity(DVs)

Onlineplanningin

creasedac-

curacyandcomplexitywhile

negativelyaffectingfluency.

Ellis&Yuan

(2005)

42EFLlearners

Between-

groups

Writtenand

oralnarrative

Generalacc

uracy,

fluency,andcom-

plexitymeas

ures

Carefulw

ithintask

planning

andpressuredwithin-task

planning(IVs);Accu

racy,

fluency,andcomple

xity(DVs)

Opportunityforcarefulwithin

taskplanningincreasedboth

accuracyandcom

plexityof

oralproductionandithadno

statisticallysignificanteffect

onfluency


6/25


In fact, during the initial task performance learners are primarily concerned with the

planning of content, i.e. processing the preverbal message (Bygate, 1996). They scan

their memory for the language that best suits dealing with the task; and this is how famil-

iarity with the message content is established. However, on the second opportunity toperform the task, since learners are already familiar with the message content, they have

ample time (and attentional resources) to shift their attention from content to the selec-

tion and monitoring of appropriate language, which results in more fluency, complexity

and/or accuracy (Bygate, 1999).

Elsewhere, Bygate states that the theoretical logic behind the hypothesis that task

repetition may assist language performance comes from the fact that part of the work of

conceptualization, formulation and articulation carried out on the first occasion is kept in

the learners memory store and can be reused on the second occasion (2001b, p. 29). All

in all, to Bygate and Samuda (2005, p. 45), task repetition is essentially theorized as hav-

ing two phases:

a first enactment of a task, in which learners are likely to organize the cognitive content, scope

out the likely useful lexico-grammar, and process it in real time, generating an experientially

derived multi-level schema to support subsequent linguistic work; followed by a second enact-

ment, during which the speaker can build on the previous one.

Therefore, there are fairly solid psycholinguistic rationales to hypothesize that task rep-

etition assists fluency as well as complexity. Of course, it is important to point out that

task repetition literature is quite divided with respect to accuracy, which makes it verydifficult to make any prediction in this regard. Generally, empirical evidence lends sup-

port to the effectiveness of task repetition to improve language performance (see Table 2

for a summary of task repetition studies).

One of the earliest documented attempts to study task repetition is Bygates (1996)

study, which investigated the effects of exact repetition of a task on language produc-

tion. In this study a participant was asked to watch a video cartoon and then to retell it.

Bygate reported that this form of repetition resulted in some striking improvement in

both fluency and accuracy; for a detailed discussion of the results of Bygate (1996), see

Bygate (1999).Gass et al.s (1999) study focused on the effects of task repetition on linguistic output

of L2 learners of Spanish. They attempted to see whether repeating (both same and

slightly altered) tasks yields more sophisticated language use. Gass et al. (1999) found

that task repetition had an effect on the overall proficiency, partial accuracy in the use of

estar, and lexical complexity.

Another interesting study on task repetition has been conducted by Lynch and Maclean

(2000, 2001) in the context of English for specific purposes. They found that task repeti-

tion (recycling) had positive effects on both accuracy and fluency in language produc-

tion. In another attempt, Bygate (2001) compared the performances of 48 learners on anarrative and an interview on two occasions with a 10-week interval in between. He

found that task repetition had a significant effect on fluency and complexity of learners

performances. The findings of this study that were strongly consistent with Bygates


7/25


Table2

Summaryofthestudiesconducted

ontaskrepetition

Study

Participants

Designofthestudy

Thetaskused

Numb

erofrepetitions

andin

tervalb

etween

Results

Bygate(1996)

1Englishlanguage

learner

Repeatedmeasures

Sameoralnarrativetask

(monologic)

Twice

witha3-day

interval

Increaseinfluencyand

accuracy

Gassetal.(

1999)

103studentsattheir

fourthsemesterof

Spanish

Between-groups

Sameandslightlyaltered

narrativ

etasks(narratingthe

taskastheywerewatching

thevide

o)

Fourtimeswith23

andone-weekintervals

Increaseinlexical

complexityandpartial

accuracyinuseof

estar

Lynch&McLean

(2000)

14participantsinan

ESPcontext

Repeated-measures

Postercarousalt

ask

(Dialogic)

Repea

tingthesame

questionandanswer

sequencefor6times

Increaseinaccuracy

andfluenc

y

Bygate(2001)

48languagelearners

Between-groups

Anarra

tivetaskaswellas

intervie

wing

Repea

tingthetask

twice

with10-week

intervalb

etween

Increaseinfluencyand

complexity


8/25


(1996) results were also corroborated in a more recent study carried out by Bygate and

Samuda (2005), which was based on the dataset in Bygate (2001).

Based on the theoretical rationale and empirical evidence delineated above, it may be

reasonable to hypothesize that task repetition assists complexity and fluency of EFLlearners oral production. It is also possible to hypothesize that task repetition compen-

sates for the dysfluency that may result from engaging in careful online planning. Yet

another possible hypothesis is that since both task repetition and careful online planning

assist, among other things, complexity of learners oral production, using them simulta-

neously may help learners produce more complex language than they may otherwise do.

We now turn our attention to the clarification and discussion of the constructs that func-

tion as dependent variables of the study: accuracy, complexity, and fluency.

3 Accuracy, complexity, and fluency

Native-like speaking ability is a general goal that many language learners seek to

achieve. As Skehan (1996) suggests, this general goal is concerned with improving

three main areas or dimensions of performance: accuracy, complexity, and fluency.

Skehan (1996, p. 46) identifies accuracy as concerned with a learners capacity to

handle whatever level of interlanguage complexity she has currently attained. Based

on this account if a learner tries to produce language more accurately, he or she is actu-

ally seeking control over the linguistic elements that she has already learned. Hence, it

may be safe to argue that encouraging learners to produce language more accuratelyfosters the use of controlled rather than automatic processes. Further, since automatic

processes develop out of controlled processes (McLaughlin & Heredia, 1996), accu-

racy is considered to be essential for the way language develops and becomes auto-

matic. Skehan also states that complexity relates to the stage and elaboration of the

underlying interlanguage system (1996, p. 46). According to Ellis and Barkhuizen

(2005), elaborated language could be conceived of in two different senses: First, cut-

ting edge development of the learner language, which is not yet fully automatic, and

second, learners readiness to use a wide range of linguistic structures. They also point

out that complexity is a function of learners eagerness to try out new linguistic knowl-edge in their speech. Fluency, Skehan argues, concerns the learners capacity to

mobilize an interlanguage system to communicate meaning in real time (1996, p. 46).

In fact, when learners are producing more fluent language they are prioritizing meaning

over form (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005).

One of the contentious issues regarding accuracy, complexity, and fluency is that of

the trade-off effects among them. In this respect, different planning studies (both pre-task

planning and online planning) have put forth different proposals. For example, Foster

and Skehan (1996) have argued that the trade-off is between accuracy and complexity.

However, Wendel (1997) has proposed that the trade-off involves fluency and accuracywith online planning enhancing accuracy and pre-task planning assisting fluency. As it

was implied above, Yuan and Elliss (2003) findings lend support to Wendels (1997)

position; in that, although both careful online planning and pre-task planning enhance

complexity, careful online planning assists accuracy but is detrimental to fluency.


9/25


However, pre-task planning assists fluency but not accuracy. In this study, following

Wendel (1997) and Yuan and Ellis (2003), it was hypothesized that the trade-off involves

accuracy and fluency with both careful online planning and task repetition enhancing

complexity in oral production.

III The present study

This study was a between-groups design that aimed to examine the effects of simultaneous

use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency

of EFL learners oral production. The independent variables were careful online planning

and task repetition with four levels:

careful online planning without task repetition;

pressured online planning with task repetition;

careful online planning with task repetition; and

pressured online planning without task repetition.

To establish a common base for comparing the results of this study with those of the

previous ones three dimensions of oral production were examined: accuracy, complexity,

and fluency. Based on the theoretical and empirical rationales expounded on so far, the

following research questions and corresponding predictions were investigated:

1. Does careful online planning have any significant effect on the accuracy of EFL

learners oral production? Building on the theoretical and empirical rationale dis-

cussed, it was hypothesized that careful online planning enhances accuracy of

EFL learners oral production.

2. Does careful online planning have any significant effect on the complexity of

EFL learners oral production? In keeping with Yuan and Elliss (2003) results it

was hypothesized that careful online planning will have beneficial effects on the

complexity of EFL learners oral production.

3. Does careful within task planning have any significant detrimentaleffect on thefluency of EFL learners oral production? Again, following Yuan and Elliss

(2003) findings, a degree of dysfluency was expected in participants oral pro-

duction but no prediction was made as to whether or not the effect would be sta-

tistically significant.

4. Does repeating the same task with a one-week interval in between increase flu-

ency of EFL learners oral production? Following Bygate (2001) as well as the

theoretical rationale available (for an informative review, see Ellis, 2005) on this

issue it was predicted that this form of task repetition would enhance fluency of

EFL learners oral production.5. Does repeating the same task with a one-week interval in between enhance EFL

learners complexity of oral production? Again, drawing on Bygates (2001) find-

ings it was hypothesized that task repetition of this kind would have significant

impact on EFL learners complexity in oral production.


10/25


6. Does simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition enhance all

dimensions of oral language production (accuracy, fluency, and complexity)?

Based on the results of both planning and task repetition studies it was hypothe-

sized that the simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetitionwould help enhancing accuracy, fluency, and complexity of EFL learners oral

production. Embedded within this hypothesis is the prediction that task repetition

may compensate for the dysfluency, which may result from engaging in careful

online planning.

IV Method

1 ParticipantsThe participants were 60 intermediate level female EFL learners recruited from an Eng-

lish language center in Iran. The participants in this study had learned English in

instructed setting for about 67 months and they were considered as intermediate level

learners according to the language centers standards and the placement tests that they

had taken (such as Oxford Placement Test). They were all between 1821 years old.

None had ever been to an English-speaking country and they had virtually no opportu-

nity to use English language for communicative purposes outside the classroom context.

In the language center, participants had 8 hours of English per week: 5 hours for speaking

and listening and 3 hours for writing and reading. Using the table of random numbers,the participants were assigned to 4 groups of 15 each.

2 Materials

For the purpose of the present study, a number of instruments were prepared; these will be

described in order. Descriptive statistics for the results of these tests are presented in Table 3.

a Test of accuracy: Although it was confirmed by the language center that participantswere all at the same level of proficiency, we developed and administered a pretest of

accuracy so as to control for the possible initial differences among the groups in terms of

accuracy level. This test was comprised of 50 fill-in-the-blank items of grammar appro-

priate for the intermediate learners (Reliability coefficient = .98). The total test scores

obtained from this test were calculated and submitted to one-way ANOVA. The results

of the ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference across the four groups

(F= .476;p = .700). Thus, based on the results obtained it could be concluded that the

groups were fairly equivalent in terms of accuracy in language production.

b Test of fluency: In order to ensure that participants were equivalent in terms of their flu-

ency, they had to be pretested. The fluency pretest administered was very much similar to

the main task (i.e. an oral narrative task) used in the main study. Participants were required

to watch a 15-minute video and were then asked to narrate the story in 6 minutes (see Sec-

tion 3 for the rationale behind this time allotment). Since the results of the pretest were not


11/25


to be compared with other similar studies and with performances of the participants in the

subsequent tests, only a measure of production rate was used, namely the number of syl-

lables produced per minute of speech. Results of the one-way ANOVA revealed that par-

ticipants were fairly equivalent in terms of their fluency (F= .854;p = .470).

c Test of online processing ability: One extraneous variable that could be a threat to theinternal validity of this study was the effect of participants differential online processing

ability. To control for this variable, following Yuan and Ellis (2003), participants were

required to take the listening subtest of TOEFL (Test 1 fromReading for TOEFL work-

book; Educational Testing Service, 1987). Hale (1989, cited in Ellis & Yuan, 2004)

argues that participants scores on TOEFL listening section may be indicative of their

online processing ability. Scores obtained from this test were also entered into one-way

ANOVA. Results revealed no significant difference among the four groups (F= .222;

p = .881). Thus, we did have some reasonable grounds to claim that participants were,

also, equivalent in terms of their online processing ability.

d Main task: Participants in four groups were required to watch a 15-minute episodeof a silent classical film (The Lucky Dog: Robbins, 1921) and were then asked to narrate

the story of that film under the conditions specified for each group. The reason behind

using a silent film was to preclude learners from taking advantage of the immediate

exposure to authentic language. Incidentally, an oral narrative task, by virtue of its

very monologic nature, induces learners to produce stretches of language that are not

influenced by interactional variables (Yuan & Ellis, 2003). Moreover, since many ofthe previous studies have used narrative tasks, this would enhance the comparability of

the results of this study.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for pretests

Group Minimum Maximum Mean SD

COLP/TR (n=

15):APS 23 26 24.47 1.060FPS 60 71 64.80 3.075OPS 16 30 23.20 4.212

POLP/+TR (n= 15):APS 22 28 24.00 1.813FPS 60 75 63.33 4.353OPS 20 28 23.53 2.232

COLP/+TR (n= 15):APS 21 27 23.93 1.624FPS 61 73 65.80 3.913

OPS 18 29 24.20 2.859POLP/TR (n= 15):APS 21 27 24.47 1.885FPS 60 76 65.07 5.612OPS 17 30 23.67 3.994

Notes:APS = accuracy pretest score; FPS = fluency pretest score; OPS = online processing test score


12/25


3 Task conditions and the procedures

In this study, we had four task conditions with particular characteristics:

careful online planning without task repetition (COPL/TR);

pressured online planning with task repetition (POLP/+TR);

careful online planning with task repetition (COLP/+TR); and

pressured online planning without task repetition (POLP/TR).

To operationalize planning conditions and to establish the time limit for task performance,

Yuan and Elliss (2003) procedure was followed. Such that we conducted a small pilot

study in the same language center using 10 language learners of relatively the same age

and proficiency level. We observed that they normally took 46 minutes to complete the

task with a mean of about 5 minutes. The maximum time spent by the participants in the

pilot study (i.e. 6 minutes) was decided to be established as the time limit for the pressured

online planning groups. Although this time limit was longer than the time that most par-

ticipants would normally spend on task competition, in total agreement with Yuan and

Ellis (2003) we reasoned that such limitation was necessary to ensure that all participants

had enough time for task completion and to place time restriction on participants perfor-

mances so as to preclude them from engaging in careful online planning. Careful online

planners were allowed to take as much time as they needed for task completion.

As for task repetition, since no regular pattern was found in the literature in terms of

the intervals between repetitions as well as the number of repetitions, we decided to asklearners to repeat the same task twice with a one-week interval in between. The study

was conducted in a laboratory that was fitted with audio-recording equipment to audio-

record participants task performances. Here is a more detailed description of the four

task conditions:

a Careful online planning without task repetition: In this condition, participants performed

the task only once (i.e. without repeating the task). They were allowed to take as much

time as they needed to formulate and monitor their performance. All task instructions

were originally in Persian. Here we have translated them into English:

You will now watch a silent video. This video has a story. Please retell this story in English

immediately after watching the video. In the meantime, imagine that you are retelling this story

to someone who is very eager to know all the details of the story. Therefore, please be as

detailed as possible in narrating the story. Feel free to take as much time as you need for task

completion. I suggest that if you have doubt in the grammatical accuracy of a sentence or you

think that you can make more complex sentences to communicate your ideas better, use your

time to reformulate the inaccurate sentences and try to improve them.

b Pressured online planning with task repetition: For this condition on both task perfor-

mance occasions, participants were asked to retell the story of the video in 6 minutes.1

They were not told that they were about to repeat the same task (or any other similar task)


13/25


a week later. One week later participants were asked to perform the same task. Of course,

it should be noted that the only occasion that we took into consideration and analysed

was the second occasion of task performance, which in fact realized task repetition. Here

are the task instructions:

First occasion: You will now watch a silent video. This video has a story. Please

retell this story in English immediately after watching the video. In the meantime,

imagine that you are retelling this story to someone who is very eager to know all

the details of the story. Therefore, please be as detailed as possible in narrating the

story. Notice that you have only 6 minutes to narrate the whole story.

Second occasion: You will now watch the same silent video that you watched last

week. Please retell [The rest of the instruction was the same as the one given

on the first occasion.]

c Careful online planning with task repetition: In this condition, participants performed thetask twice. On the first occasion they were asked to retell the story under time restriction

(i.e. maximum of 6 minutes), whereas on the second occasion they were allowed to take

as much time as they needed to perform the task recommended to take account of the

details of the story. Here again, the first occasion was not to be compared with any condi-

tion and we took into consideration and analysed only the second occasion of task per-

formance as this was the occasion that realized the simultaneous use of careful online

planning and task repetition. Here are the task instructions:

First occasion: You will now watch a silent video. This video has a story. Please

retell this story in English immediately after watching the video. In the meantime,

imagine that you are retelling this story to someone who is very eager to know all

the details of the story. Therefore, please be as detailed as possible in narrating the

story. Notice that you have only 6 minutes to narrate the whole story.

Second occasion: You will now watch the same silent video that you watched last

week [The rest of the instruction was the same as the instruction given on care-

ful online planning/no task repetition condition.]

d Pressured online planning, no task repetition: This condition served as the control con-dition; in that, participants performed the task only onceand under time restriction (i.e.

a maximum of 6 minutes). Task instruction for this condition was the same as the one

used on the first occasion of careful online planning/task repetition condition above.

It is important to point out that all narrations produced under the abovementioned

conditions were audio-recorded and then transcribed by one of the researchers. The tran-

scribed narrations were then segmented and scored based on the measures which we

chose for assessing accuracy, complexity, and fluency (see Section 4). To ensure that the

segmentation of the transcripts into clauses and/or AS units (analysis of speech units)was conducted reliably, 30% of the data were checked for intercoder reliability. Cron-

bachs alpha magnitude was .92 for clauses and .95 for AS units. Thus, we can rest

assured that the segmentation and measurement procedures were almost reliable.


14/25


4 Measurement of the variables

One of the important measures used in this study is that of the length of time that each

participant took for task completion. This measure is similar to the one Yuan and Ellis(2003) have used to measure the independent variable of their study, namely planning. In

this study we measure and compare the amount of time (seconds) that each participant

has spent on task completion to make sure that the careful online planners have taken

more time to perform the task than pressured online planners. This will place us in a posi-

tion to make more valid arguments as to the effects of careful and pressured online plan-

ning on accuracy, complexity, and fluency.

Different studies have used different measures to assess accuracy, complexity, and

fluency. Ellis (2005, 2008) provides a fairly comprehensive list of such measures. He also

points out that using multiple measures to assess each dimension of language performance

may result in a more valid assessment but that using different measures by different research-

ers may decrease the comparability of the results obtained. In this study, to enhance both the

validity of the assessments and the comparability of the results, we decided to adapt some of

the measures used by Wendel (1997), Yuan and Ellis (2003) and Ellis and Yuan (2005).

a Accuracy measures:

Error-free clauses: the percentage of the clauses that were not erroneous. All syn-

tactic, morphological, and lexical errors were taken into consideration.

Correct verb forms: the percentage of all verbs that were used correctly in termsof tense, aspect, modality, and subjectverb agreement.

b Complexity measures:

Syntactic complexity (amount of subordination): the ratio of clauses to AS units

in the participants production. The rationale behind choosing AS unit is that this

unit is essentially a syntactic one and syntactic units are genuine units of planning

(Foster et al., 2000), which might make them good units for analysing spoken

language in this study. Syntactic variety: the total number of different grammatical verb forms used in

participants performances. We used tense (e.g. simple present, simple past, past

continuous, etc.) and modality (e.g.should, must, etc.) as grammatical verb forms

used for the analysis.

c Fluency measures:

Rate A (number of syllables produced per minute of speech): the number of syl-

lables within each narrative, divided by the number of seconds used to completethe task and multiplied by 60.

Rate B (number of meaningful syllables per minute of speech): Rate As proce-

dure was followed again, but all syllables, words, phrases that were repeated,

reformulated, or replaced excluded.


15/25


To analyse the obtained data, first, descriptive statistics were used and the scores were

checked in terms of the normality of distribution using such indices as Kurtosis and

Skewness. Second, a series of analyses of variance (ANOVA)2 were performed in order

to draw generalizations from sample statistics to population parameters.

V Results

As it was noted previously, one important way to operationalize careful online planning

is to ask learners to take as much time as they need to reformulate and improve their

language while they are performing the task. Normally then, careful online planners are

expected to spend more time on task completion than pressured online planners do. In

order to ensure that careful online planning has been successfully operationalized, the

total amount of time (seconds) that each participant has spent on task completion has

been calculated, and all four groups have been compared with one another in terms of

this measure. Descriptive statistics presented in Table 4 indicate that careful online plan-

ners have taken more time for task completion than pressured online planners have. Also,

a one-way ANOVA followed by a Scheffe post-hoc analysis reveals that the differences

among the four groups were statistically significant and that the statistically meaningful

differences lay among careful and pressured online planning groups (see Table 4). Thus,

it could be argued that careful online planning has been operationalized successfully.

To provide a plausible answer to the first research question two measures were used:

percentage of error-free clauses and percentage of correct verb forms. Descriptive statis-tics for these two measures (see Table 5) indicate that careful online planners have pro-

duced more error-free clauses and correct verb forms than pressured online planners

have. One-way ANOVA and Scheffe post-hoc analysis, as presented in Table 5, point to

the statistically significant differences between careful online planning groups and pres-

sured online planning groups (both +/TR) in terms of the percentage of error-free

clauses and percentage of correct verb forms. Thus, there is good evidence to suggest

that careful online planning enhances accuracy of EFL learners oral production.

The second research question pertained to the effects of careful online planning on the

complexity of EFL learners oral production. Descriptive and inferential statistics asillustrated in Table 6 show that participants in careful online planning/TR group have

outperformed those in pressured online planning/TR group (i.e. the control group) in

terms of both measures of complexity. Another important piece of information that we

can obtain from Table 6 is that there is no statistically significant difference between

careful online planning/TR and pressured online planning/+TR groups (p = .975;

p = .998), which could be attributable to the fact that both task repetition and careful

online planning have positive effects on complexity. Therefore, in response to the second

research question, it would be safe to suggest that careful online planning enhances the

complexity of EFL learners oral production.The incentive behind posing the third research question was to see whether or not

careful online planning results in statistically significant dysfluency in participants oral

production. To this end, all groups were compared in terms of the measures of fluency,

i.e. the total number of syllables produced per minute of speech (Rate A) and the total


16/25


Table4

Statisticsforthelengthoftime(sec

onds)spentontaskcompletio

n

M

ean(SD)

FvalueSig.

Locationofsignificance

COLP/

-TR

POLP/

+TR

COLP/

+TR

POLP/

-TR

COLP/

-TR

POLP/

+TR

COLP/

-TR

COLP/

+TR

COLP/

-TR

POLP/

-TR

POLP/

+TR

COLP/

+TR

PO

LP/

+TR

PO

LP/

-TR

COLP/

+TR

POLP/

-TR

Lengthoftime

364.73(15.47)353.06(7.7

1)369.06(5.7

6)353.66(10.20)8.83

.000.0

33*

.732

.048*

.001*

.99

9

.002*

Note:*=p

the effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency...

Documents