Cover not available
Part of
Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan
Edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen and Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
[Task-Based Language Teaching 13] 2019
► pp. 199–228

Chapter 9
Strategic planning and repetition as metacognitive processes in task performance

Implications for EFL learners’ speech production

| Federal University of Santa Catarina
| Federal University of Santa Catarina/CNPq
| Lancaster University
By manipulating strategic planning and repetition, we investigated the effects of four pre-task conditions – strategic planning, repetition, strategic planning plus repetition and strategic planning for repetition – on the oral production of 47 EFL learners performing a video-based narrative task. In general, Results of ANOVA show an intricate pattern of interaction between pre-task condition and the 4 dimensions of oral performance. The strategic planning for repetition condition exerted a positive and significant impact on learners’ accuracy, complexity, and lexical density at the expense of fluency. The repetition condition had a significant impact on fluency, lexical density, and accuracy, at the expense of complexity. The strategic planning plus repetition condition yielded significant gains only in lexical density. Crucially, the strategic planning condition did not have a significant impact on any of the dimensions of oral performance. Responses to the questionnaires show that learners’ approach to different experimental conditions is idiosyncratic and that a series of variables interact in different ways when learners perform orally in L2. These variables include the nature of the task, learners’ focus of attention during performance, and learners’ effectiveness in implementing and retrieving pre-planned ideas. Nevertheless, in general, the questionnaires show that participants saw strategic planning and repetition as beneficial to their oral performance. Together, our results add evidence to Peter Skehan’s Limited Attention Hypothesis (LAC) (1998) and highlight the importance of combining strategic planning repetition in the training of oral skills.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Planning and repetition as metacognitive processes
  • The current study
  • Method
    • Design
    • Participants and context
    • The instruments: The task and the questionnaires
      • The task
      • The questionnaires
    • Procedures for data collection
    • Measures of L2 speech production
  • Results
    • ANOVA results
      • Fluency
    • Complexity
    • Weighted lexical density
    • Accuracy
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 28 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.10del
References (61)
References
Ashcraft, M. (1994). Human memory and cognition. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bui, G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
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.23–48). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.38–73). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Uso-Juan & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp.159–186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Patterning and unpredictability in the task-in-process: A dynamic systems theory approach. In C. Derivry-Pollard, P. Faure, & C. Brudermann (Eds.), Apprender les langues dasn l’enseignement supérieur au 21éme siècle (pp.135–163). Paris: Riveneuve.Google Scholar
Coelho, F. (2017). “It bears repeating”: The effects of immediate repetition on learners’ L2 performance in a poster carrossel task (Unpublished MA thesis). Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil. Retrieved from < [URL]Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Ely, R. (2006). An investigation on learners’ metacognitive processes: Strategic planning, repetition and strategic planning for repetition as catalysts of interlanguage development (Unpublished PhD dissertation). The Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R, (2009). Task based research and language pedagogy. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp.109–134) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fortkamp, M. B. M. (2000). Working memory capacity and L2 speech production: An exploratory study (Unpublished PhD dissertation). The Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.126–135). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second language acquisition, 18, 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning in task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 185–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp.275–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, M., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-Gracía, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guara-Tavares, G. (2016). Learners’ process during pre-task planning and working memory. Ilha do Desterro, 69, 79–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2002). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51, 401–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: a quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1978). Skill theory and language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 53–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Q. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’oral performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.129–154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Li, L., Chen, J., & Sun, L. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pre-task planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 38–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T. (1997). Nudge, nudge: Teacher interventions in task-based learner talk. ELTJ, 51, 317–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELTJ, 55, 124–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELTJ, 61, 311–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Perform, reflect, recycle: Enhancing task repetition in second language speaking classes. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). A case of exercising: 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.141–162). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Loughlin, K. (1995). Lexical density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 12, 217–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pretask planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behavior and second language performance in narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.95–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The cognition hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp.87–121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.119–140). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
(2005). Expertise in second language pedagogic task design. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in language teaching (pp.230–254). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanguran, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis, (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.11–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, C., & Ellis, R. (2018). The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated performance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. In Bygate, M. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
(1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspective s on task performance (pp.1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp.123–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1995). Task type and task processing as influences on foreign language performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Working papers in English language teaching, 3, 139–188.Google Scholar
(1999). Task structure and processing conditions in narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Strategic and on-line planning. The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Specht, A. L. & D’Ely, R. C.S.F. (2017). Planning oral narrative tasks: optimizing strategic planning condition through strategy instruction. Acta Scientiarum (UEM), 39, 203–212.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Cognitive psychology. Belmont: Thomas Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar