In:Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan
Edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen and Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
[Task-Based Language Teaching 13] 2019
► pp. 199–228
Chapter 9Strategic planning and repetition as metacognitive processes in task performance
Implications for EFL learners’ speech production
Published online: 28 August 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.10del
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.10del
By manipulating strategic planning and repetition, we investigated the effects of four pre-task conditions – strategic planning, repetition, strategic planning plus repetition and strategic planning for repetition – on the oral production of 47 EFL learners performing a video-based narrative task. In general, Results of ANOVA show an intricate pattern of interaction between pre-task condition and the 4 dimensions of oral performance. The strategic planning for repetition condition exerted a positive and significant impact on learners’ accuracy, complexity, and lexical density at the expense of fluency. The repetition condition had a significant impact on fluency, lexical density, and accuracy, at the expense of complexity. The strategic planning plus repetition condition yielded significant gains only in lexical density. Crucially, the strategic planning condition did not have a significant impact on any of the dimensions of oral performance. Responses to the questionnaires show that learners’ approach to different experimental conditions is idiosyncratic and that a series of variables interact in different ways when learners perform orally in L2. These variables include the nature of the task, learners’ focus of attention during performance, and learners’ effectiveness in implementing and retrieving pre-planned ideas. Nevertheless, in general, the questionnaires show that participants saw strategic planning and repetition as beneficial to their oral performance. Together, our results add evidence to Peter Skehan’s Limited Attention Hypothesis (LAC) (1998) and highlight the importance of combining strategic planning repetition in the training of oral skills.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Planning and repetition as metacognitive processes
- The current study
- Method
- Design
- Participants and context
- The instruments: The task and the questionnaires
- The task
- The questionnaires
- Procedures for data collection
- Measures of L2 speech production
- Results
- ANOVA results
- Fluency
- Complexity
- Weighted lexical density
- Accuracy
- ANOVA results
- Discussion
- Conclusion
Acknowledgement Notes References Appendix
References (61)
Bui, G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.23–48). London: Routledge.
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.38–73). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Uso-Juan & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp.159–186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2013). Patterning and unpredictability in the task-in-process: A dynamic systems theory approach. In C. Derivry-Pollard, P. Faure, & C. Brudermann (Eds.), Apprender les langues dasn l’enseignement supérieur au 21éme siècle (pp.135–163). Paris: Riveneuve.
Coelho, F. (2017). “It bears repeating”: The effects of immediate repetition on learners’ L2 performance in a poster carrossel task (Unpublished MA thesis). Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil. Retrieved from <
[URL]
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383.
D’Ely, R. (2006). An investigation on learners’ metacognitive processes: Strategic planning, repetition and strategic planning for repetition as catalysts of interlanguage development (Unpublished PhD dissertation). The Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil.
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20.
(2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R, (2009). Task based research and language pedagogy. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp.109–134) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fortkamp, M. B. M. (2000). Working memory capacity and L2 speech production: An exploratory study (Unpublished PhD dissertation). The Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil.
Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.126–135). London: Heinemann.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second language acquisition, 18, 299–323.
(1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning in task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 185–324.
(2014). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp.275–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gass, S., Mackey, M., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-Gracía, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.
Guara-Tavares, G. (2016). Learners’ process during pre-task planning and working memory. Ilha do Desterro, 69, 79–94.
Hulstijn, J., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2002). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51, 401–436.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: a quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1978). Skill theory and language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 53–70.
Li, Q. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’oral performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.129–154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, L., Chen, J., & Sun, L. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pre-task planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 38–66.
Lynch, T. (1997). Nudge, nudge: Teacher interventions in task-based learner talk. ELTJ, 51, 317–325.
(2018). Perform, reflect, recycle: Enhancing task repetition in second language speaking classes. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–250.
(2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.141–162). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.
O’Loughlin, K. (1995). Lexical density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 12, 217–237.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.
(2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pretask planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behavior and second language performance in narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.95–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140.
(2015). The cognition hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp.87–121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.119–140). Harlow: Pearson Education.
(2005). Expertise in second language pedagogic task design. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in language teaching (pp.230–254). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sanguran, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis, (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.11–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sheppard, C., & Ellis, R. (2018). The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated performance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. In Bygate, M. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
(2014a). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2014b). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspective s on task performance (pp.1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp.123–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1995). Task type and task processing as influences on foreign language performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Working papers in English language teaching, 3, 139–188.
(1999). Task structure and processing conditions in narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
(2005). Strategic and on-line planning. The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Specht, A. L. & D’Ely, R. C.S.F. (2017). Planning oral narrative tasks: optimizing strategic planning condition through strategy instruction. Acta Scientiarum (UEM), 39, 203–212.
Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373–403.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Terres, Mariana Lima, Marilia Camponogara Torres & Ana Flávia Boeing Marcelino
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
