Volume 4, Issue 4 (12-2019)                   IJREE 2019, 4(4): 1-12 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Behyar M, Nabilou M. The Combined Effects of Pre-task and Careful Online Planning on EFL Learners' Written Discourse. IJREE 2019; 4 (4)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-213-en.html
Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor University, Qom, Iran
Abstract:   (4769 Views)
The present study aimed at examining the combined effects of pre-task and online planning time on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in narrative-based texts produced by Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Overall, the implemented studies in this regard point to the facilitative impacts for both pre-task and careful online planning on complexity, accuracy, and fluency with some recorded trade-off effects. Using a between-groups design, sixty homogeneous participants were randomly assigned to four performance conditions: no planning (NP), careful online planning (OLP), pre-task planning (PTP), and both pre-task and careful online planning (POLP). The findings revealed that pre-task and careful online planning don’t have any significant effects on the level of complexity. The results also suggested that whereas the provision of abundant online planning time increases the accuracy level, the opportunity to plan prior to performance leads them to generate more fluent written discourse. In addition, compared with the NP condition, pre-task in tandem with careful online planning time enable the participants to produce more accurate, and fluent written discourse that lend support to the Dual-Mode system and Limited Attentional Capacity Model. The findings are of pedagogical significance in that they speak of the efficacy of planning as an important metacognitive learning strategy capable of helping teachers achieve the desirable pedagogical objective of enhanced complexity, accuracy, and fluency of learners’ task-based production. Theoretically, the results underscore the effectiveness of planning time in helping language learners overcome the limitation of their attentional capacity and direct them towards aspects of form and meaning.
Full-Text [PDF 451 kb]   (1027 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: General

1. Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of EFL learners' oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35-59. [DOI:10.1177/1362168810383329]
2. Ahmadian, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2014). Investigating what second language learners do and monitor under careful online planning conditions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(1), 50-75. doi: 10.3138/cmlr. 1769 [DOI:10.3138/cmlr.1769]
3. Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test 2: Test pack. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An Integrated Approach. New York: Wiley
5. Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI. [DOI:10.3998/mpub.11496]
6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 239-297. doi: 10.1007/BF01464075 [DOI:10.1007/BF01464075]
8. Collins, A. M., & Gentner, D. (1980). A frame work for a cognitive theory of writing. In L.W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.) Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 51-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Styles shifting in the use of past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(1), 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0272263100006483 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100006483]
10. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdom: Benjamin's Publishing Company. [DOI:10.1075/lllt.11]
12. 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(1), 59-84. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263104026130]
13. 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 a second language (pp. 167-192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/lllt.11.11ell]
14. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-323. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100015047]
15. Heaton, J. B. (1966). Composition through pictures. Essex: Longman.
16. Hill, L. A. (1960). Picture composition book. Hong Kong: Longman.
17. Johnson, M., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264-282. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011]
18. Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. pp. 143-164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/lllt.11.09kaw]
19. Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 327-342. doi: 10.2307/1423213 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1423213 [DOI:10.2307/1423213]
20. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57-71). Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
21. Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474-496. doi: [DOI:10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu]
22. Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83-108. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263198001041]
23. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students' argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218-233. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003]
24. Piri, F., Barati, H., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of pre-task, on-line, and both pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy - The case of Iranian EFL learners' written production. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 158-167. [DOI:10.5539/elt.v5n6p158]
25. Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of task complexity and planning conditions on L2 argumentative writing production. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 726-742. [DOI:10.1080/0163853X.2017.1336042]
26. Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511667190]
27. Rostamian M., Fazilatfar A. M., & Jabbari A. (2017). The effect of planning time on cognitive processes, monitoring behavior, and quality of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research, 22(4), 418-438. [DOI:10.1177/1362168817699239]
28. Sangarun. J. (2001). The effects of pre-task planning on foreign language performance. Doctoral thesis. University of Toronto, Canada.
29. Sharafi-Nejad, M., Raftari, S., Ismail, S. A. M. M., & Eng, L. S. (2016). The effects of pre-task planning on Iranian EFL learners' accuracy of writing performance. Journal of Studies in Education, 6(4), 119-132. [DOI:10.5296/jse.v6i4.10228]
30. Skehan, P. (1996). Second-language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.): Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann, 17-30.
31. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1177/003368829802900209]
32. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amp047]
33. 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:10.1177/136216889700100302]
34. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120. [DOI:10.1111/1467-9922.00071]
35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071 [DOI:10.1111/1467-9922.00071]
36. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). New York; Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009]
37. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: the effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-73. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x]
38. Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C.A. Mac Arthur, S. Graham, &J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67-80) New York: Guilford Press.
39. Wendel, J. N. (1997). Planning and second-language narrative production (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Temple University, Japan.
40. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
41. Yuan, F. (2001). The effects of planning on language production in task-based language teaching. (Doctoral thesis).Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
42. 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]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb