This article reports on three research studies, all of which concern second language task performance. The first focuses on planning, and compares on-line and strategic planning as well as task repetition. The second study examines the role of familiarity on task performance, and compares this with conventional strategic planning. The third study examines the effect on task performance of different types of post-task transcription. The three studies are also examined in relation to one another for the broader generalizations that they permit. These suggest that repetition can be stronger in its effects than on-line or strategic planning, but that planning is more potent in its effects than simply familiarity with the material being spoken about. In addition, what is termed supported on-line planning and post-task transcription are associated with less error in performance. The three studies are discussed in terms of the wider second language performance processes of complexifying, rehearsing and monitoring. These processes are linked to the Levelt model of speaking, and applied to the need to analyse tasks in a manner consistent with pedagogic goals.
BeiX. (2010). The effects of topic familiarity and strategic planning in topic-based task performance at different proficiency levels. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong, China.
2.
BellH. (2003). Using frequency lists to assess L2 texts. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Swansea, UK.
3.
BygateM. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.
4.
CarrellP.EisterholdJ. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553–73.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
CrookesG. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–83.
7.
EllisR. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–20.
8.
EllisR. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9.
EllisR. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
10.
EllisR.YuanF. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.
11.
FosterP.SkehanP. (2011). Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency of L2 language performance. Unpublished manuscript, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
12.
LeveltW. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
LiQ. (2010). Focus on form in task based language teaching: Exploring the effects of post-task activities and task practice on learners’ oral performance. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
14.
LongM.RobinsonP. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In DoughtyC.WilliamsL. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
LuoS. (2007). Re-examining factors that affect task difficulty in task-based language assessment. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
16.
LynchT. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal, 55, 124–32.
17.
LynchT. (2007). Learning from the transcript of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61, 311–19.
18.
MearaP.BellH. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5–19.
19.
MehnertU. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52–83.
20.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3–50). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
21.
OchsE. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In GivonT. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Volume 12: Discourse and semantics (pp. 51–80). New York: Academic Press.
22.
OrtegaL. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23.
PloughI.GassS. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In CrookesG.GassS. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
24.
ReadJ. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
RobinsonP.CadiernoT.ShiraiY. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 533–54.
27.
SamudaV. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 119–40). London: Longman.
28.
SkehanP. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
29.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
SkehanP. (2007). Task research and language teaching: Reciprocal relationships. In FotosS.NassajiH. (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 55–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
SkehanP. (2009a). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–32.
32.
SkehanP. (2009b). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In RichardsB.DallerH.MalvernD.D.MearaP. (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107–24). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
SkehanP. (2009c). Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In BenatiA. (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 202–15). London: Continuum.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
36.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
37.
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. 193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38.
SkehanP.FosterP. (in press). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing Research. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–73). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40.
Van den BrandenK.BygateM.NorrisJ. (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41.
WangZ. (2009). Modelling speech production and performance: Evidence from five types of planning and two task structures. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
42.
WigglesworthJ. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85–106.
43.
WillisD.WillisJ. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
YuanF.EllisR. (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.
