Studies on on-line planning have been based upon the same definition in the past few decades, and they have operationalized on-line planning in similar ways. Drawing upon theories in cognitive psychology, the present study sets out to propose a revised definition of on-line planning that aims at capturing a greater variety of on-line planning behaviors. Two methods of eliciting on-line planning were implemented: providing students with listener’s feedback between two consecutive rounds of task performance, and providing them with criteria for successful task performance. Their effects on second language (L2) narrative task performance and the use of planning strategies were investigated with 90 Chinese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) who were first-year English majors. To assess the quality of task performance, complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) measures and a measure of story completeness were employed. Post-task interviews were conducted to explore planning strategies. Results from the quantitative and the qualitative analyses suggest that utilizing listeners’ feedback successfully elicited an increased number of on-line planning activities. Participants under this on-line planning condition also produced significantly more complex and accurate output than the non-intervention group.
AhmadianM.J. (2011). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16, 129–149.
2.
AhmadianM.J. (2012). The relationship between working memory capacity and L2 oral performance under task-based careful online planning condition. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 165–175.
3.
AhmadianM.J.TavakoliM. (2010). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59.
4.
AhmadianM.J.TavakoliM.DastjerdiH. (2015). The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 speech. Language Learning Journal, 43, 41–56.
5.
AndersonJ.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
ArnoldJ.Hudson KamC.TanenhausM. (2007). If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: The on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 914–930.
7.
AwwadA.AlhamadR. (2021). Online task planning and L2 oral fluency: Does manipulating time pressure affect fluency in L2 monologic oral narratives?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59, 605–627.
8.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
BrindleyG. (2001). Outcomes-based assessment in practice: Some examples and emerging insights. Language Testing, 18, 393–407.
10.
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). Routledge.
11.
BygateM. (Ed.). (2018). Learning language through task repetition: Volume 11. John Benjamins.
12.
BygateM.SamudaV. (2005). 2. Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). John Benjamins.
13.
ChoiK.MardenJ. (1997). An approach to multivariate rank tests in multivariate analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92, 1581–1590.
14.
DaviesS.P. (2005). Planning and problem solving in well-defined domains. In MorrisR.WardG. (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of planning (pp. 35–52). Psychology Press.
15.
de JongN.PerfettiC.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization: Fluency training. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.
16.
de JongN.TillmanP. (2018). Grammatical structures and oral fluency in immediate task repetition: Trigrams across repeated performances. In BygateM. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition: Volume 11 (pp. 43–73). John Benjamins.
17.
de JongN.H.SteinelM.P.FlorijnA.F.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ.H. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 5–34.
18.
EllisR. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins.
19.
EllisR.SkehanP.LiS.ShintaniN.LambertC. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
20.
FlowerL.S.HayesJ.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In GreggL.W.SteinbergE.R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Routledge.
21.
FludernikM. (1991). The historical present tense yet again: Tense switching and narrative dynamics in oral and quasi-oral storytelling. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 11, 365–398.
22.
FosterP.TonkynA.WigglesworthG. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.
23.
FriedmanS.L.ScholnickE.K.CockingR.R. (Eds.). (1987). Blueprints for thinking: The role of planning in cognitive development. Cambridge University Press.
24.
GilabertR.MuñozC. (2010). Differences in attainment and performance in a foreign language: The role of working memory capacity. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 19–42.
25.
GrafmanJ.SpectorL.RattermannM.J. (2005). Planning and the brain. In MorrisR.WardG. (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of planning (pp. 181–198). Psychology Press.
26.
GuQ. (2021). Impact of task preparedness on L2 oral performance and strategy use. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning, 1, 196–226.
27.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
28.
HayesJ.FlowerL. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In GreggL.W.SteinbergE.R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Routledge.
29.
Hayes-RothB.Hayes-RothF. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, 275–310.
30.
HeatonJ.B. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. Longman.
31.
HsuH.-C. (2012). Investigating the effects of planning on L2 text chat performance. CALICO Journal, 29, 619–638.
32.
KimY. (2013). Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 8–35.
33.
KyleK. (2019). Measuring lexical richness. In WebbS. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (1st ed., pp. 454–476). Routledge.
34.
KyleK.CrossleyS.BergerC. (2018). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): Version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1030–1046.
KyleK.CrossleyS.A.JarvisS. (2021). Assessing the validity of lexical diversity indices using direct judgements. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18, 154–170.
37.
LambertC.KormosJ.MinnD. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 167–196.
38.
LêK.CoelhoC.MozeikoJ.KruegerF.GrafmanJ. (2011). Measuring goodness of story narratives: Implications for traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology, 25, 748–760.
39.
LeveltW.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
40.
LiS.FuM. (2016). Strategic and unpressured within-task planning and their associations with working memory. Language Teaching Research, 22, 230–253.
41.
McCarthyP.M.JarvisS. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.
42.
MehnertU. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.
43.
MichelM. (2017). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 production. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). Routledge.
44.
MillerG.A.GalanterE.PribramK.H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. Henry Holt.
45.
NakakuboT. (2011). The effects of planning on second language oral performance in Japanese: Processes and production. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa, IA, Iowa, USA. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.vvewb5mw (accessed March 2024).
46.
OchsE. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In GivonT. (Ed.), Discourse and syntax: Volume 12 (pp. 51–80). Academic Press.
47.
O’MalleyJ.M.ChamotA.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
48.
OrmerodT.C. (2004). Planning and ill-defined problems. In MorrisR.WardG. (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of planning (pp. 53–70). Psychology Press.
49.
OrtegaL. (2005). What do learners plan? In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). John Benjamins.
50.
OscarsonM. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications. Language Testing, 6, 1–13.
51.
OscarsonM. (1997). Self-assessment of foreign and second language proficiency. In ClaphamC.CorsonD. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language testing and assessment: Volume 7 (pp. 175–187). Kluwer Academic.
52.
OxfordR.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle.
PangF.SkehanP. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). John Benjamins.
55.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research: Effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
56.
RoseR.L. (1998). The communicative value of filled pauses in spontaneous speech. Dissertation, University of Birmingham. Available at: https://nurc.fflch.usp.br/node/392
57.
RossS.J. (2005). The impact of assessment method on foreign language proficiency growth. Applied Linguistics, 26, 317–342.
58.
SchiffrinD. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57, 45–62.
59.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
60.
SkehanP. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
61.
SkehanP. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge.
62.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
63.
TavakoliP. (2016). Fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance: Challenges in defining and measuring L2 fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54, 133–150.
64.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). John Benjamins.
65.
Van den BrandenK. (2022). How to teach an additional language: To task or not to task?: Volume 15. John Benjamins.
66.
WangZ. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–62). John Benjamins.
67.
WolfsonN. (1979). The conversational historical present alternation. Language, 55, 168–182.
68.
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.
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.
