Volume 10, Issue 1 (3-2025)
IJREE 2025, 10(1): 39-50 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mardani M, Shadbakht N. The Influence of Task Type and Pre-Task Planning Condition on the Speaking Accuracy of Iranian EFL Learners. IJREE 2025; 10 (1)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-955-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-955-en.html
Behbahan Khatam Alanbia University of Technology
Abstract: (427 Views)
This research investigated the impact of varying planning conditions and task types on the accuracy of pupils' speaking abilities. Utilizing the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), 80 intermediate female participants nominated for the research and assigned to four untouched classes. These classes were planned as the individual-planning personal task class (IPPT class), the individual-planning decision-making task class (IPDT class), the class-planning personal task class (CPPT class), and the class-planning decision-making task class (CPDT class). Two concurrent decision making tasks were planned to be conducted both at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, while a six-week intervention was scheduled in between. Three sessions were dedicated to administering the OPT test, the pretest, and the posttest; and the students accomplished two dissimilar task types under two diverse planning situations throughout the other three treatment meetings. The results from the one-way ANOVA discovered that pre-task planning conditions and task types significantly influence the accuracy of speaking. These outcomes reinforce the notion that planning conditions have meaningful results on pupils' accomplishment in personal and decision-making tasks. Consequently, both planning conditions proved real in enhancing students' performance in speaking tasks. It is suggested that educators should give considerable attention to pre-task planning to alleviate EFL pupils' challenges in attaining upper ranks of accuracy in their speaking abilities.
References
1. Aaj, A., Maftoon, P., & Siyyari, M. (2023). Effects of pre-task task planning, online planning, and combined pre-task and online planning on young learners' oral production. Journal of Language Horizons, 7(3), 63-89. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2022.36007.1487
2. Abasi D, S., Ahangari, S., & Seifoori, Z. (2019). The effects of task variation on the accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL pupils' oral performance. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3-14). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.24763187.2019.8.3.2.6
3. Chen, J. (2020). The effects of pre-task planning on EFL pupils' oral performance in a 3D multi-user virtual environment. ReCALL, 32(3), 232-249. doi:10.1017/S0958344020000026 [DOI:10.1017/S0958344020000026]
4. Clark, H., & Clark, G. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
5. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/lllt.11]
7. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. doi:10.1093/applin/amp042 [DOI:10.1093/applin/amp042]
8. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324. doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100015047]
9. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215-247. doi:10.1191/136216899672186140 [DOI:10.1191/136216899672186140]
10. Guerrero, R. G. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Barcelona, Spain.
11. Hulstijn, J., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23-43. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00994.x]
12. Khoram, A. (2019). The impact of task type and pre-task planning condition on the accuracy of intermediate EFL learners' oral performance. Cogent Education, 6(1). 10.1080/2331186X.2019.1675466 [DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2019.1675466]
13. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. P. G. Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in typeal language learning (pp.117-135). Clevedon: Multilingual matters Ltd. [DOI:10.21832/9781853599286-009]
14. 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:10.1017/S0272263198001041]
15. doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001041
16. Mofidi, A. (2005). The relationship between instrumental and integrative motivation of students and their performance on planned and unplanned speaking tasks. Unpublished master's thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
17. O'Grady, S. (2019). The impact of pre-task planning on speaking test performance for English-medium university admission. Language Testing, 36(4), 505-526. doi.org/10.1177/0265532219826604 [DOI:10.1177/0265532219826604]
18. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on type in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 109-148. doi: doi:10.1017/S0272263199001047 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263199001047]
19. Rahimpour, M., & Hazar, F. (2008). Interactional feedback, strategic planning and interlanguage variations. Journal of the Faculty of Letters & Humanities (200), 48-68.
20. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511667305]
21. Roohi, A. (2006). Striking an effective balance between accuracy and fluency in task-based teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
22. Saeedi M. (2020). Task condition and L2 oral performance: Investigating the combined effects of online planning and immediacy. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 8(32), 35-48.
23. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [DOI:10.1057/9780230596429]
24. Seifoori, Z. (2009). The impact of metacognitive strategies-based training and levels of planning on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of focused task-based oral Performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran, Iran
25. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press [DOI:10.1177/003368829802900209]
26. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [DOI:10.1177/136216889700100302]
27. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to type and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009177 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100009177]
28. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
29. 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), 1-27. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.1.1 [DOI:10.1093/applin/24.1.1]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
