This study investigated the impact of different lengths of pre-task planning time on performance in a test of second language speaking ability for university admission. In the study, 47 Turkish-speaking learners of English took a test of English language speaking ability. The participants were divided into two groups according to their language proficiency, which was estimated through a paper-based English placement test. They each completed four monologue tasks: two picture-based narrative tasks and two description tasks. In a balanced design, each test taker was allowed a different length of planning time before responding to each of the four tasks. The four planning conditions were 30 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes. Trained raters awarded scores to the test takers using an analytic rating scale and a context-specific, binary-choice rating scale, designed specifically for the study. The results of the rater scores were analysed by using a multifaceted Rasch measurement. The impact of pre-task planning on test scores was found to be influenced by four variables: the rating scale; the task type that test takers completed; the length of planning time provided; and the test takers’ levels of proficiency in the second language. Increases in scores were larger on the picture-based narrative tasks than on the two description tasks. The results also revealed a relationship between proficiency and pre-task planning, whereby statistical significance was only reached for the increases in the scores of the lowest-level test takers. Regarding the amount of planning time, the 5-minute planning condition led to the largest overall increases in scores. The research findings offer contributions to the study of pre-task planning and will be of particular interest to institutions seeking to assess the speaking ability of prospective students in English-medium educational environments.
BuiG.HuangZ. (2016). L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: Performance, measurement and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1362168816656650.
4.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CrookesG. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), 367–383.
7.
ElderC.IwashitaN. (2005). Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference? In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 219–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8.
ElderC.IwashitaN.McNamaraT. (2002). Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: What does the test-taker have to offer?Language Testing, 19(4), 347–368.
9.
ElderC.WigglesworthG. (2006). An investigation of the effectiveness and validity of planning time in part 2 of the IELTS speaking test. IELTS Research Reports (Vol. 6, pp. 1–28). Canberra: IELTS Australia and British Council.
10.
EllisR. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Styleshifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–20.
11.
EllisR. (2005). Planning and task based performance: Theory and research. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12.
EllisR. (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.
13.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996). The influence of planning time on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–234.
14.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.
15.
FulcherG. (2003). Testing second language speaking. London: Pearson.
16.
FulcherG. (2015). Re-examining language testing: A philosophical and social inquiry. London: Routledge.
17.
GencZ. (2012). Effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of oral and written tasks in the performance of Turkish EFL learners. In ShehadehA.CoombeC. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts research and implementation (pp. 67–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18.
GengX.FergusonG. (2013). Strategic planning in task based language teaching: The effects of participatory structure and task type. System, 41, 982–993.
19.
GilabertR. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/− here and now): Effects on oral production. In MayoM. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
20.
Guara-TavaresM. (2009). The relationship among pre-task planning, working memory capacity, and L2 speech performance: A pilot study. Linguagem & Ensino, 12(1), 165–194.
21.
HiraiA.KoizumiR. (2013). Validation of empirically derived rating scales for a story retelling task. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 398–422.
22.
HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23.
InoueC. (2013). Task equivalence in speaking tasks. Berlin: Peter Lang.
24.
IwashitaN.McNamaraT.ElderC. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401–436.
25.
KawauchiC. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143–165). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26.
KormosJ.DenesM. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164.
27.
LambertC. (2017). Tasks, affect and second language performance. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 657–664.
28.
LambertC.KormosJ. (2014). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in task-based research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 607–614.
29.
LambertC.PhilpJ.NakamuraS. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 665–680.
30.
LeveltM. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
31.
LiL.ChenJ.SunL. (2014). The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 38–66.
MochizukiN.OrtegaL. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativisation. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11–37.
34.
NielsonK. (2013). Can planning time compensate for individual differences in working memory capacity?Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 272–293.
35.
NittaR.NakatsuharaF. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on oral task performance. Language Testing, 31(2), 147–175.
36.
O’GradyS. (2018). Investigating the use of an empirically derived, binary-choice and boundary- definition (EBB) scale for the assessment of English language spoken proficiency. In HidriS. (Ed.), Revisiting the assessment of second language abilities: From theory to practice (pp. 49–64). Springer: Cham, Switzerland.
37.
O’SullivanB. (2012). Assessing speaking. In CoombeC.DavidsonP.O’SullivanB.StoynoffS. (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp. 234–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
O’SulivanB. (2016). Validity: What is it and who is it for? In LeungY. (Ed.), Epoch making in English language teaching and learning: Evolution, innovation, and revolution (pp. 201–222). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
PangF.SkehanP. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language reporting in narrative retelling. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.
42.
SangarunJ. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43.
SasayamaS.IzumiS. (2012). Effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on Japanese EFL learners’ oral production. In ShehadehA.CoombeC. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts research and implementation (pp. 23–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
44.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
SkehanP. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.
46.
SkehanP. (2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34–49.
47.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211.
48.
SkehanP.FosterP. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language (pp. 193–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
49.
SwainM. (1985). Large scale communicative testing: A case study. In LeeY.FokC.LordR.LowG. (Eds.), New directions in language testing (pp. 35–46). Hong Kong: Pergamon Press.
50.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51.
TurnerC.UpshurJ. (1996). Developing rating scales for the assessment of second language performance. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 55–79.
52.
UCLES. (2001). Quick Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
WeirC.O’SullivanB.HoraiT. (2006). Exploring difficulty in speaking tasks: An intra-task perspective. IELTS Research Reports (Vol. 6, pp. 1–42). Canberra: IELTS Australia and British Council.
54.
WelchB. (1951). On the comparison of several mean values: An alternative approach. Biometrika, 38(3/4), 330–336.
55.
WigglesworthG. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85–106.
56.
WigglesworthG.ElderC. (2010). An investigation of the effectiveness and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(1), 1–24.
57.
XiX. (2005). Do visual chunks and planning impact the overall quality of oral descriptions of graphs?Language Testing, 22(4), 463–508.
58.
XiX. (2010). Aspects of performance on line graph description tasks: Influenced by graph familiarity and different task features. Language Testing, 27(1), 73–100.
59.
YuanF.EllisR. (2003). The effects on pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 1–27.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
