LANGUAGE TEACHING RESEARCH

The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners oral production

Language Teaching Research 15(1) 3559 The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permissions: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1362168810383329 http://ltr.sagepub.com

Mohammad Javad Ahmadian and Mansoor Tavakoli

University of Isfahan, Iran

Abstract
This 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 and task 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.

Keywords
accuracy, careful online planning, complexity, EFL context, fluency, task repetition

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
Corresponding author: Mohammad Javad Ahmadian, Department of English, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan, Hezar Jirib Street, Isfahan, 81746-7344, Iran Email: ahmadian.edu@gmail.com

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 performance 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 language 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 planning 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 production research is Levelts (1989) model. The mechanisms that underlie speech production as conceptualized by Levelt could be reduced to one sentence: People produce speech first by conceptualizing the message, then by formulating its language representation (i.e. encoding it), and finally by articulating it (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 performance and at the formulation stage of the Levelts three-staged model. It is distinguished 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

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 careful 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 restriction, learners can take time to attend to form and to formulate more accurate structures and 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 conditions 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 accurate. In another study, Ellis (1987) compared the accuracy of learners performance on written and oral narrative tasks based on pictures. The two important variables investigated 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 in performing 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 perform a task under time pressure, the working memory system uses the limited time to

38

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

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 pretask 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. Nonetheless, 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 repetition 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 formulating 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.

Table 1 Summary of the studies conducted on careful online planning The task used Oral narrative Word order Time and focal attention (IVs); Accuracy (DV) Target structure The variables involved Results Time + attention to form = more accurate

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

Study

Participants

Design of the study

Hulstijn & Hulstijn (1984) Ellis (1987) Regular and irregular Online planning (OLP) and past tense forms strategic planning (IVs); Accuracy (DV)

32 adult learners of L2 Dutch

Betweengroups

17 intermediate ESL learners

Repeated- Written and measures oral narrative

Yuan & Ellis 42 EFL learners (2003) Written and oral narrative

Betweengroups

Oral narrative

Ellis & Yuan (2005)

42 EFL learners

Betweengroups

General accuracy, fluency, and complexity measures General accuracy, fluency, and complexity measures

Online planning and pre-task planning (IVs); Accuracy, fluency, and complexity (DVs) Careful within task planning and pressured within-task planning (IVs); Accuracy, fluency, and complexity (DVs)

Learners language was most accurate when they had the opportunity to engage in both OLP and strategic planning and least accurate when they did not engage in either OLP or strategic planning Online planning increased accuracy and complexity while negatively affecting fluency. Opportunity for careful within task planning increased both accuracy and complexity of oral production and it had no statistically significant effect on fluency

39

40

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

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 familiarity with the message content is established. However, on the second opportunity to perform 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 selection 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 having 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 enactment, during which the speaker can build on the previous one.

Therefore, there are fairly solid psycholinguistic rationales to hypothesize that task repetition 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 very difficult to make any prediction in this regard. Generally, empirical evidence lends support 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 production. 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 repetition (recycling) had positive effects on both accuracy and fluency in language production. In another attempt, Bygate (2001) compared the performances of 48 learners on a narrative 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

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

Table 2 Summary of the studies conducted on task repetition Design of the study Repeated measures Between-groups The task used Number of repetitions and interval between Results

Study

Participants

Bygate (1996)

Gass et al. (1999)

1 English language learner 103 students at their fourth semester of Spanish Repeated- measures

Twice with a 3-day interval Four times with 23 and one-week intervals

Lynch & McLean (2000) Between-groups A narrative task as well as interviewing

14 participants in an ESP context

Same oral narrative task (monologic) Same and slightly altered narrative tasks (narrating the task as they were watching the video) Poster carousal task (Dialogic)

Increase in fluency and accuracy Increase in lexical complexity and partial accuracy in use of estar Increase in accuracy and fluency Repeating the same question and answer sequence for 6 times Repeating the task twice with 10-week interval between Increase in fluency and complexity

Bygate (2001)

48 language learners

41

42

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

(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 EFL learners oral production. It is also possible to hypothesize that task repetition compensates 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 simultaneously 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 function 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 actually 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 accurately fosters the use of controlled rather than automatic processes. Further, since automatic processes develop out of controlled processes (McLaughlin & Heredia, 1996), accuracy is considered to be essential for the way language develops and becomes automatic. 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, cutting 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 knowledge 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 accuracy with 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.

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

43

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 discussed, it was hypothesized that careful online planning enhances accuracy of EFL learners oral production. 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. Does careful within task planning have any significant detrimental effect on the fluency of EFL learners oral production? Again, following Yuan and Elliss (2003) findings, a degree of dysfluency was expected in participants oral production but no prediction was made as to whether or not the effect would be statistically significant. Does repeating the same task with a one-week interval in between increase fluency 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. Does repeating the same task with a one-week interval in between enhance EFL learners complexity of oral production? Again, drawing on Bygates (2001) findings it was hypothesized that task repetition of this kind would have significant impact on EFL learners complexity in oral production.

2.

3.

4.

5.

44 6.

Language Teaching Research 15(1) 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 hypothesized that the simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition would 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 Participants
The participants were 60 intermediate level female EFL learners recruited from an English 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 opportunity 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 participants were 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 appropriate 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 fluency, 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 Section 3 for the rationale behind this time allotment). Since the results of the pretest were not

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

45

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 syllables produced per minute of speech. Results of the one-way ANOVA revealed that participants 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 the internal 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 from Reading for TOEFL workbook; 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 episode of 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 of the previous studies have used narrative tasks, this would enhance the comparability of the results of this study.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for pretests Group COLP/TR (n = 15): APS FPS OPS POLP/+TR (n = 15): APS FPS OPS COLP/+TR (n = 15): APS FPS OPS POLP/TR (n = 15): APS FPS OPS Minimum 23 60 16 22 60 20 21 61 18 21 60 17 Maximum 26 71 30 28 75 28 27 73 29 27 76 30 Mean 24.47 64.80 23.20 24.00 63.33 23.53 23.93 65.80 24.20 24.47 65.07 23.67 SD 1.060 3.075 4.212 1.813 4.353 2.232 1.624 3.913 2.859 1.885 5.612 3.994

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

46

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

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 participants 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 performances 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 ask learners 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 audiorecord 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 performance 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)

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

47

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 the task 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 condition and we took into consideration and analysed only the second occasion of task performance 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 careful online planning/no task repetition condition.] d Pressured online planning, no task repetition: This condition served as the control condition; in that, participants performed the task only once and 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 transcribed 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. Cronbachs 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.

48

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

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 position to make more valid arguments as to the effects of careful and pressured online planning 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 researchers 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 syntactic, morphological, and lexical errors were taken into consideration. Correct verb forms: the percentage of all verbs that were used correctly in terms of 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 syllables within each narrative, divided by the number of seconds used to complete the task and multiplied by 60. Rate B (number of meaningful syllables per minute of speech): Rate As procedure was followed again, but all syllables, words, phrases that were repeated, reformulated, or replaced excluded.

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

49

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.

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 planners 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 statistics for these two measures (see Table 5) indicate that careful online planners have produced 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 pressured 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 as illustrated 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

50

Table 4 Statistics for the length of time (seconds) spent on task completion F value Sig. POLP/ -TR COLP/ -TR POLP/ +TR .000 .033* .732 .048* .001* COLP/ -TR COLP/ +TR COLP/ -TR POLP/ -TR POLP/ +TR COLP/ +TR POLP/ +TR POLP/ -TR .999 Location of significance COLP/ +TR POLP/ -TR .002*

Mean (SD) COLP/ +TR

COLP/ -TR

POLP/ +TR

Length of time

364.73 (15.47) 353.06 (7.71) 369.06 (5.76) 353.66 (10.20) 8.83

Note: * = p < .05

Table 5 Statistics for the measure of accuracy F value POLP/ -TR Sig. COLP/ -TR POLP/ +TR 9.964 62.158 .000 .000 .002* .000* Location of significance COLP/ -TR COLP/ +TR .680 1.000 COLP/ -TR POLP/ -TR .000* .000* POLP/ +TR COLP/ +TR .045* .000* POLP/ +TR POLP/ -TR .980 .997 COLP/ +TR POLP/ -TR .016* .000*

Mean (SD) COLP/ +TR

COLP/ -TR

POLP/ +TR

Correct clauses 26.24 (2.99) 17.36 (1.83)

31.28 (1.27)

29.39 (1.37)

30.72 (.72)

29.20 (1.46)

Correct verb

26.28 (3.34)

17.56 (1.19)

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

Note: * = p < .05

Table 6 Statistics for the measure of complexity F value POLP/ -TR COLP/ -TR POLP/ +TR 22.21 14.77 .000 .998 .006* .043* .000 .975 .008* .001* .002* .011* COLP/ -TR COLP/ +TR COLP/ -TR POLP/ -TR POLP/ +TR COLP/ +TR POLP/ +TR POLP/ -TR .002* .027* Sig. Location of significance COLP/ +TR POLP/ -TR .000* .000*

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

Mean (SD)

COLP/ -TR

POLP/ +TR

COLP/ +TR

C/AS 6.73 (.88)

1.05 (.029)

1.04 (.027)

1.08 (.01)

1.00 (.03)

DGV

7.80 (1.01)

7.86 (.74)

9.13 (1.24)

Notes: C/AS = Ration of clauses to AS units; DGV = Different grammatical verbs used; * = p < .05

Table 7 Statistics for the measure of fluency F value POLP/ -TR Sig. COLP/ -TR POLP/ +TR 27.96 23.82 .000 .000 .000 .000 COLP/ -TR COLP/ +TR .000 .000 Location of significance COLP/ -TR POLP/ -TR .008 .002 POLP/ +TR COLP/ +TR .994 .997 POLP/ +TR POLP/ -TR .001 .023 COLP/ +TR POLP/ -TR .003 .038

Mean (SD)

COLP/ -TR

POLP/ +TR

COLP/ +TR

Rate A 44.15 (1.39)

47.93 (1.00)

50.28 (.58)

50.20 (.38)

49.00 (1.07)

Rate B

42.76 (.81)

45.21 (.67)

45.14 (.46)

51

52

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

number of meaningful syllables (Rate B). Descriptive statistics shown in Table 7 reveal that participants in the control group (POLP/TR) have produced more syllables per minute (excluding and including reformulations, repetitions, and replacements) than those in the careful online planning/TR group have. Although we did not make any prediction as to the statistical significance of the probable dysfluency that careful online planners go through, Table 7 confirms that the between-group difference in terms of dysfluency is statistically significant. Since the only variable that differentiates the two groups is pressured vs. careful online planning condition, we can attribute this dysfluency to participants engagement in careful online planning. In Table 7 it is also indicated that those groups which repeated the task twice with a one-week interval in between (POLP/+TR and COLP/+TR) have been more fluent than the other two groups (COLP/ TR and POLP/TR). This difference is confirmed to be statistically significant as shown in Table 7. Thus, task repetition has a positive effect on the fluency of EFL learners oral production, and this is the answer to our fourth research question. As for the fifth research question, analysing the data obtained from the two measures of complexity showed that task repetition assists complexity in EFL learners oral production. As it is indicated in Table 6, both +TR groups have higher mean scores than pressured online planning/TR group, and this is the case with both measures of complexity. Moreover, one-way ANOVA and the post-hoc analysis confirm the statistical significance of the differences among mean scores (see Table 6). This means that task repetition enhances complexity of learners oral production and in this respect it has the same effect on language production as careful online planning does. The final research question concerned the effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of EFL learners oral production. The effects for the simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition (which is realized in our third condition) are fairly evident by looking at the Tables we have referred to so far. As it is shown in Table 5, participants in careful online planning/+TR group have produced more error-free clauses and correct verb forms. Also, participants who performed the narrative task under this condition have produced more complex language in terms of the two measures of complexity (Table 6). Yet, there are two interesting findings that relate to the combination of these two implementation variables and are in fact peculiar to this task condition. First, a reexamination of Table 6 reveals that participants in careful online planning/+TR group have outperformed participants in all other groups in terms of complexity measures. This means that the impacts of careful online planning on complexity coupled with the effects for task repetition on complexity have assisted learners to produce more complex language than they could do if they were to perform under +TR or careful online planning conditions alone. Second, as it was predicted at the outset of the study, engaging in careful online planning resulted in a degree of dysfluency. It was also predicted that since task repetition enhances fluency, it may also compensate for the dysfluency which results from engaging in careful online planning. Interestingly enough, as it is displayed in Table 7, the participants in careful online planning/+TR group (i.e. the winners of the study) exceeded those in the control group (POLP/TR) in terms of both measures of fluency. Therefore, we can conclude that the simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition positively influences

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

53

accuracy, complexity, and fluency. Additionally, and more importantly, the simultaneous use of these two implementation variables results in a degree of complexity in EFL learners oral production that is above and beyond the effects for each of these variables when used alone.

VI Discussion
This study was primarily aimed at examining the effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners oral production. At this section, we will first summarize the findings of the study and then we will discuss each in turn. It was shown at the results section that participants in careful online planning groups spent more time on task completion than those in pressured online planning (control) groups did, and the differences proved to be statistically significant. Therefore, it could be argued that careful online planning has been successfully operationalized. This finding is particularly important, in that our interpretations regarding the effects for careful online planning are essentially based on the premise that careful online planning has been successfully operationalized. Regarding the first research question posed pertaining to the effects for careful online planning on accuracy, as predicted, it was found that participants in careful online planning groups were more accurate in terms of both measures of accuracy. The careful online planning/TR group exceeded both pressured online planning groups but not the careful online planning/+TR group, which is indicative of the positive impact of careful online planning on accuracy. In a way, this finding is consistent with the results that Hulstijn and Hulstijn (1984) and Ellis (1987) obtained. Nonetheless, these two studies have not used general accuracy measures; with the former measuring accuracy in terms of word order and the latter assessing accuracy in terms of regular and irregular past tense forms. Hence, one may argue that Hulstijn and Hulstijn (1984), Ellis (1987), and the present study are not very much comparable. However, for two reasons we can argue that the present study perfectly replicates Yuan and Elliss (2003) and Ellis and Yuans (2005) findings with respect to accuracy: We have used almost the same measures to assess accuracy as they have employed; and We have followed a procedure to operationalize careful online planning which is very much similar to the one Yuan and Ellis (2003) and Ellis and Yuan (2005) have. Participants in all conditions were required to start narrating the story right after watching the movie. Thus, we are in a position to argue that learners have not engaged in strategic planning, and results obtained are attributable to either careful online planning or task repetition or the combined effects of these two implementation variables. In this respect, our findings vis--vis accuracy supports Wendels (1997) argumentation that essentially learners careful planning during task performance is responsible for their accurate production. Moreover, results do not reflect any

54

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

difference between the combined and independent effects of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy as there is no statistically significant difference between careful online planning/TR and careful online planning/+TR groups in terms of the two measures of accuracy. This finding provides further evidence in support of the limited and selective nature of attentional capacity, in that learners who have used more time for task completion have produced more accurate language than those who have performed the task under time restriction. Also, it lends support to Skehans (1998) dual-mode system proposal. Skehan states that rule-based system is likely to be parsimoniously and elegantly organized, with rules being compactly structured (p. 89). Thus, to be accessed it needs more time and attention. When learners are restricted in terms of time they tend to fall back on their exemplar-based system, which may lead to more fluent production. However, since the participants of our study were intermediate EFL learners, their repertoire of linguistic exemplars was rather limited and therefore one cannot expect a high level of accuracy under pressured online planning conditions. Conversely, when learners are allowed to take as much time as they need for task completion and to carefully plan their language online, they may draw on their rule-based system. Making use of this rule-based system very well explains higher level of accuracy as well as a degree of dysfluency, which was found to be statistically significant in this study. The results of the present study also indicate that careful online planning positively impacts upon complexity in EFL learners oral production. Hence, Yuan and Elliss (2003) and Ellis and Yuans (2005) findings regarding the effects for careful online planning on complexity in terms of syntactic complexity and syntactic variety are replicated. It follows from this finding that when learners are restricted in terms of time, they are primarily concerned with message conveyance and trying out cutting-edge language is not very much of a priority to them as it taxes their working memory. On the contrary, when they have ample time, they attempt to produce grammatically accurate and complex language. As it was mentioned previously, Yuan and Ellis (2003) reported a degree of dysfluency, which resulted from engagement in careful online planning. Surprisingly, the results of the present study revealed that engaging in careful online planning will result in a statistically significant degree of dysfluency. Participants in careful online planning/TR group produced language less fluently than those in all other groups (including the control group). It sounds logical to posit that this instruction as well as the time available to participants in careful online planning/TR has induced them to draw on their rule-based system. Rule-based system acts upon explicit linguistic knowledge retrieved from long-term memory, which according to Ellis (2005) taxes working memory. As a result, participants attentional resources, which get used up by retrieving explicit knowledge, cannot process meaning appropriately and thus the rate of speech (fluency) decreases significantly. A number of studies have confirmed that task repetition enhances complexity and/or fluency (Bygate, 1996, 2001; Gass et al., 1999; Lynch & Maclean, 2000). In this study, as it was anticipated we found that task repetition positively impacts complexity as well as fluency. Of course, since following Ellis (2005, 2008) we take task repetition as a kind of pre-task planning, our finding regarding complexity is in a way in line with Wendels

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

55

(1997) claim and Yuan and Elliss (2003) finding that complexity in language production is closely linked with pre-task planning. This finding has a psycholinguistic explanation. Huitt (2003) mentions four general principles for information processing theories on which, he argues, most cognitive psychologists agree. One such principle is that there is a need for a control mechanism, which oversees the encoding, processing, storage, retrieval, and utilization of information (Huitt, 2003). The important point that Huitt makes is that not all attentional capacity is available, and some of it is used by this control mechanism, Such that when one performs a new task this executive function needs more processing and attentional resources than when one is performing a routine or familiar task. Thus, when learners repeat a task with certain interval in between, their attentional capacity will be assisted in two ways, which may psycholinguistically explain the enhancement of complexity and fluency: The control mechanism requires less processing power in that it has once overseen processing, retrieval, and utilization of information for performing the same task; and Some traces of the meaning (or the story of the video) that needs to be processed at the conceptualization stage of Levelts model is already available and thus, contrary to the first occasion of task performance, most parts of meaning processing do not require as much of the learners attentional resources (Muranoi, 2007). This latter point supports Yuan and Elliss (2003) finding that prioritizing conceptualization over formulation and articulation enhances complexity. Regarding the combined effects for careful online planning and task repetition three important findings were documented. First, as it was noted earlier, our third condition (careful online planning/+TR) tied with our first condition (careful online planning/TR) in terms of accuracy. Therefore, the simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition was not different from the use of careful online planning alone; in both cases accuracy enhanced significantly as compared to the control group. Second, as it was predicted, the simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition compensated for the dysfluency, which resulted from engaging in careful online planning. Third, surprisingly, the simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition led to an exponential increase in the complexity of participants oral production in terms of both measures used. From a psycholinguistic perspective, these two latter findings are well explained with reference to the dual-mode system proposal and Levelts (1989) model of speech production. It was noted that according to Skehans dual-mode system proposal, when learners perform a task under time pressure they draw on their exemplar-based system, and when precision matters to them and there is enough time they tend to make use of their rulebased system. It is reasonable to suggest that both rule-based and exemplar-based

56

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

systems relate to the formulation stage of Levelts model; that is, they do not concern what meaning is to be communicated (conceptualization), rather they concern how meaning is to be communicated (formulation). When learners perform a task for the second time, they have once done the conceptualization work and thus this stage of speech production does not need much attention. Moreover, some traces of the forms that they have used in their first performance may be available to them. Thus, since they know what they want to talk about and they already have some traces of the forms, which fit the meaning to be conveyed, when they engage in careful online planning their rate of speech does not decrease. But, how can we account for the exponential increase in language complexity that resulted from simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition? We mentioned earlier that task repetition assists complexity by virtue of the fact that it facilitates conceptualization process. Here, we may want to add that when participants have ample time for task completion and are instructed to improve their language in terms of accuracy and complexity, they are likely to use the cutting edge of their grammatical ability to subordinate and/or coordinate ideas (Wendel, 1997), which results in more complex language. Therefore, the exponential increase in complexity of participants oral production has two sources: one is task repetition, which assists the process of conceptualization, and the other is engaging in careful online planning, which induces learners to draw on their rule-based system and to experiment with their new linguistic knowledge. These findings have an important implication for language pedagogy in EFL context. Obviously, our first condition i.e. careful online planning/TR is the most common option that teachers naturally choose to implement; quite rarely do teachers require learners to perform a task under time pressure. However, as one of the anonymous reviewers of Language Teaching Research has pointed out, the simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition will be certainly more beneficial for language pedagogy in that it helps reaping the benefits of careful online planning in the areas of accuracy and complexity while also supporting fluency. In fact, this helps moving towards what Skehan (1998, p. 91) calls a sort of balanced and phased program [which helps fostering] a system which remains open to noticing and to change while at the same time making some gains in terms of fluency and real-time language processing (Skehan, 1998, p 91). Thus, one way to move towards a language pedagogy that fosters the development of all facets of language production, the findings of this study suggest, is to make use of careful online planning and task repetition simultaneously.

VII

Conclusions

This study was primarily an attempt to investigate the effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of EFL learners oral production. The major contribution that this study makes to the existing literature is the discovery that the simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition positively impacts the EFL learners accuracy, complexity, and fluency in their oral production. On the second occasion of task performance where

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

57

learners were allowed to take as much time as they needed for task competition they not only produced language more accurately than other participants in pressured online planning groups, but they also were able to produce complex and fluent language as compared to the participants in pressured online planning groups. Moreover, task repetition had the potential to compensate for the dysfluency that resulted from engaging in careful online planning. It was also confirmed that the simultaneous use of these two implementation variables leads to an exponential increase in learners complexity of oral language production. Despite the abovementioned positive findings, some limitations need to be acknowledged. First, like most planning and repetition studies, this study was conducted under laboratory condition. This raises the issue of ecological validity, as language instruction normally takes place in language classrooms with real language learners (Doughty, 2003). Therefore, caution must be taken in generalizing the results of this study and bringing the findings down to the actual world of classroom practice. Second, perhaps the use of more valid and reliable techniques and instruments could help researchers come to more authentic results than the current findings. Finally, the inclusion of introspective interviews in the design of the research could have helped us develop a better understanding into what language learners actually do when they are repeating a task for the second time and are allowed to carefully plan their speech online. So, there is a need for further research here. Acknowledgements
The authors are deeply grateful to Professor Rod Ellis and two anonymous Language Teaching Research reviewers for their invaluable critical comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes
1 In fact, since the first occasion was not to be compared with any other condition (or occasion), we assumed that setting a time limit for task performance or simply letting participants take as much time as they needed could not have any effect on the ultimate results of the study. Given the range of dependent variables, one of the anonymous reviewers questioned the use of one-way ANOVA as an appropriate test of significance, suggesting that a MANOVA might be more appropriate for such studies; however, as Ellis and Yuan (2004) have pointed out, this will increase the risk of a Type 1 error. Additionally, according to Keselman et al. (1998, as cited in Ellis & Yuan, 2004) there is very limited convincing empirical evidence for a MANOVA univariate data analysis strategy. Thus, using a series of one-way ANOVAs seemed to be the best option available.

References
Anderson, J.R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley. Bygate, M. (1996). Effect of task repetition: Appraising the development of second language learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 13646). Oxford: Heinemann. Bygate, M. (1999). Task as the context for the framing, re-framing and unframing of language. System, 27, 3348.

58

Language Teaching Research 15(1)

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 2348). Harlow: Longman. Bygate, M. & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 3774). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second Language Acquisition (pp. 256310). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Educational Testing Service (1987). Reading for TOEFL workbook. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 120. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 5984. Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 16792). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299324. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 35475. Gass, S.M., Mackey, A., Fernandez, M., & Alvarez-Torres, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 54980. Hale, G. (1989). Confirmatory factor analysis of the test of English as a foreign language. TOEFL Research Reports, 32. Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from: http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/infoproc.html (September 2010). Hulstijn, J. & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 2343. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 22150. Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (2001). Effects of immediate task repetition on learners performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99118). Harlow: Longman.

Ahmadian and Tavakoli

59

McLaughlin, B. & Heredia, R. (1996). Information processing approaches to research on second language acquisition and use. In R. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), A handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 21328). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. Dekeyser (Ed.): Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 5184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robbins, J. (Dir.) (1921). The Lucky Dog [Motion picture]. USA: Sun-Lite Pictures. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scovel, T. (1998). Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 3862. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287301. Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Japan. Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effect of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 127.