The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 37 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language Performance
Open accessAbstract
This study focuses on the impact of different variables on the nature of language performance in the context of task-based instruction. Characteristics of tasks are discussed, and then a framework is offered that can organize the nature of task-based instruction and relevant research. The framework is used to generate predictions regarding the effects of three different tasks (Personal Information Exchange, Narrative, and Decision-Making) and three different implementation conditions for each task (unplanned, planned but without detail, detailed planning) on the variables of fluency, complexity, and accuracy. The study reports strong effects of planning on fluency and clear effects also on complexity, with a linear relationship between degree of planning and degree of complexity. However, a more complex relationship was discovered between planning and accuracy, with the most accurate performance produced by the less detailed planners. In addition, interactions were found between task type and planning conditions, such that the effects of planning were greater with the Narrative and Decision-Making tasks than with the Personal Information Exchange task. The results are discussed in terms of an attentional model of learning and performance and highlight the importance of tradeoff effects between the goals of complexity and accuracy in the context of the use of limited capacity attentional resources. The study contributes to the development of cognitive models of second language performance and addresses a number of pedagogic issues.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
59 Own result · 48 Own interpretation · 14 Own method · 13 Sources not found · 13 No full text of the sources · 6 No basis given · 5 Not checked yet · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding the fluency measures of pauses and silence, the no planning group always produced the least fluency.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can conclude, therefore (and this is interesting in itself), that general task familiarity does not have an influence on the level of complexity achieved.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study reports strong effects of planning on fluency”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the Personal and Decision tasks variation in planning produced little difference.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“interactions were found between task type and planning conditions, such that the effects of planning were greater with the Narrative and Decision-Making tasks than with the Personal Information Exchange task.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Detailed planning only led to greater fluency than undetailed planning for the Narrative task.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 3 therefore receives some support, but only at a fairly weak level.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 2 is accordingly confirmed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For each task it is noteworthy that the undetailed planners produced the most accurate level of performance.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with a linear relationship between degree of planning and degree of complexity.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 61
- It may state two separate claims as one. 52
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“a focus on form (rather than a focus on forms, i.e., form in general rather than any form in particular) is very important if language development is to occur (Doughty, 1991)”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Doughty, 1991 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Saliency and Conclusion sections report that focus on form helped learners acquire English relativization. But the Comprehension and Rule Internalization section says both the meaning-oriented and rule-oriented treatments facilitated acquisition, so the paper does not establish that focus on form, rather than focus on forms, is necessary for language development. Page numbers are not available in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The figures in Table 6 indicate that pauses and total silence achieved significance for all three tasks, with very high levels achieved for the Narrative and Decision tasks.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the detailed planners produced a level of accuracy that was greater than the no planning condition for the Personal and Decision tasks, but the no planning condition produced more accurate performance than detailed planning in the Narrative task.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant differences were found for greater variety of present-tense usage (i.e., forms other than the simple present), modals, or conditionals.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The central finding here is that there are significant differences in the proportion of error-free clauses that were used under the different planning conditions, but these differences show a complex pattern.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a more complex relationship was discovered between planning and accuracy, with the most accurate performance produced by the less detailed planners.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings for complexity, in contrast, essentially supported Hypothesis 5 across the tasks, with the detailed planners always producing significantly greater complexity than the undetailed planners, who in turn outperformed the no planning group (with only the comparison for the no planners vs. the undetailed planners failing to reach significance).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“for the Personal and Decision tasks there was only an overall effect for planning versus no planning, the results showing little difference between the two planning conditions”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The F ratio of 5.73 for the Decision task is significant at the .01level, with Duncan range tests demonstrating that the no planning condition was significantly different from the two planning conditions but that the two types of planning did not produce significantly different effects.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The syntactic variety results, which provided only limited support for the more specific Hypothesis 3, patterned similarly to the fluency measures, with little difference between the two planning conditions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results in Table 8 suggest a very strong effect for the planning condition: Detailed planning produced significantly more subordination than undetailed planning, which in turn produced significantly more subordination than no planning.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The accuracy level, it will be recalled, is comparable to that obtained with the Personal task (and above that obtained for the Narrative task).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This effect is of a monotonic nature for the Narrative task, but there is only a binary distinction for the other two tasks (i.e., the detailed and undetailed conditions do not lead to different patterns of pausing and total silence).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Planning produces more of these, rendering the discourse, in one sense, less fluent.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The measures of syntactic variety were not strong, in any sense, and provide no clear support for Hypothesis 6.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is relevant, in this respect, that the changes in accuracy were least for this task, with even a reduction of accuracy level for the detailed versus the undetailed planners.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Consistent with Crookes (1989), complexity became the preeminent goal, but accuracy suffered to some degree, reducing to a point midway between the undetailed and nonplanning conditions for the Personal task, below the no planning conditions for the Narrative task, and only slightly inferior to the undetailed planning for the Decision task.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes (1989) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, the Personal and Decision tasks lead (average error proportions of 0.70 and 0.69, respectively), whereas the Narrative task produces the lowest overall accuracy level (0.61).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The least complex language is used with the Personal task (1.18 clauses per c-unit), the Decision task produces more complex language (1.32), and the Narrative task produces the most complex language of all (1.44).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we have to conclude that Hypothesis 5 is only supported to a limited degree and that the results obtained reveal a more complex picture than was predicted.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complexity, in contrast, although never as great as the Narrative task, is higher than the Personal task and shows a more marked effect for planning.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So it is already striking that there is an accuracy effect in the present study, even though statistically it is not as strong as that for complexity or fluency.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This pattern of results has been replicated in a subsequent study (Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Foster & Skehan, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fluency measures for the Personal task reduced by less than do those for the Decision task and, most of all, the Narrative”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Personal task generates a greater degree of accuracy without achieving much complexity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With accuracy, the Personal task and the Decision task produce clear (and fairly similar) gains, whereas the degree of improvement for the Narrative task is less marked.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If only base forms are used, such as simple present or simple past tenses, there would seem to be little impetus for interlanguage change to occur through the use of more challenging forms.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This characterization suggests that the Personal task should be easiest and most accessible to learners”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data set, based on 31 subjects, is otherwise complete.”
plainn = 31- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This task was considered to place the heaviest cognitive load upon the subject and to allow the least attentional resources to be given to language form.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On balance, then, the Narrative task is judged to be easier than the Decision task.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“posttask activities with a strong focus on form can have a beneficial effect on (earlier) task performance itself, provided that learners themselves make the connection between task completion and subsequent posttask activity.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites J.Willis & Willis, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The c-unit, defined by Brock (1986) as an independent utterance providing referential or pragmatic meaning, allows for ellipsis and is thus a more sensitive measure for the spoken language.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brock (1986) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clauses would also generalize across a range of different specific forms and not be dependent on any one of them.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The choice of these types was based on an analysis of tasks commonly used in current English language teaching textbooks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Narrative and Decision tasks are similar to one another in that they provide relatively low familiarity but a high computational load.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accuracy, in contrast, concerns control at a particular interlanguage level.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These comparisons do not attain significance in specific pairwise comparisons, but the trend in the results is clear.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complexity emphasizes the organization of what is said and draws attention to the progressively more elaborate language that may be used, as well as a greater variety of syntactic patterning.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a measure of accuracy may not reflect complexity of language and may be the result of relatively simple, well-controlled forms being used to achieve a more target-like use of language.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Crookes (1989) relied principally on specific measures (target-like use of the article system and of plural -s), and this may have been a factor in the lack of significance reported.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes (1989) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fluency also reflects the effectiveness of the planning process and the way propositions can be orchestrated into effective, ongoing discourse.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“accuracy, as a reflection of a focus on form, may have a more conservative orientation, whereas complexity may capture a greater willingness to experiment and to take risks.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complexity is likely to reflect a willingness, on the learner's part, to engage in restructuring as more complex subsys-terns of language are developed.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the main competition for attentional resources is between meaning and form, with first priority generally being given to meaning (VanPatten, 1990).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites VanPatten, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The experimental groups were each divided into two, and in each case half the subjects were randomly assigned the undetailed planning condition and half the detailed planning condition (see Table 2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“such a measure should produce good intersubject variation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Skehan (1992Skehan ( , 1996)), following Schmidt (1990), takes fluency to reflect the primacy of meaning and the capacity to cope with real-time communication.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In any case, given the counterbalanced nature of the research design, any trend toward a practice effect on errors does not influence the conclusions to be drawn later.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: If there was a practice effect of consistent strength over the three visits of the study, the Personal Information Exchange task, always completed in the second week, would be affected to the same degree as the averaged performance on the other two tasks.
In the paper
“the standard deviations for the measures reported tended to be higher for the planning groups for the complexity measures, suggesting that some subjects interpreted the planning instructions in different ways”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes (1989) source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also likely to be associated with greater risktaking to the extent that actual performances may be exploited to use forms closer to the cutting edge of interlanguage development.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the process of trying to reach an agreement on a series of difficult questions was considered most likely to require the use of complex language.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the calculation of error-free clauses has merit”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“one can also try to measure the range of syntactic forms used, as these reflect a capacity to draw upon a greater variety of language.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“transacting tasks will push forward interlanguage development because the demands that tasks make will engage the very processes that lead to acquisition.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“such measures are likely to be more sensitive to differences in experimental conditions, detecting weaker effects because these are likely to be based on more variance.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this way, subjects were protected from any special pressure that selection for recording might have had upon their performance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complexity, in other words, connects with change and the opportunities for development and growth in the interlanguage system.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To combat any practice effect, each of the controls and each of the experimental groups did the tasks in a different order (see Table 3).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the nature of the task would require relatively simple linguistic forms to be used.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It may therefore prioritize lexicalized language (Ellis, 1987) and the way learners, during tasks, avoid rule-based, constructed language, instead preferring to use more idiom-based language (Sinclair, 1991) to enable communication to proceed more smoothly.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis, 1987 source
- Not matchedcites Sinclair, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“decisions to attend to one area are usually made at the expense of attending to another.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Ellis (1987) found that accuracy on the regular (rule-governed) form of the past tense declined according to lack of planned discourse being engaged, whereas performance on the irregular (lexical) past form was hardly affected by these conditions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis (1987) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it was seen as requiring the least cognitive effort and allowing the greatest attention to language form.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“attention and noticing are central for second language development”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt, 1990 source
- Not matchedcites Schmidt, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“such a focus makes noticing more likely and also enables language teaching goals of accuracy and complexity (Skehan, 1992) to be pursued more effectively.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Skehan, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Crookes (1989) reported a study in which providing subjects with pretask planning time leads to greater complexity and variety of language but no significant increases in accuracy.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes (1989) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was seen as giving scope for more complex language but also demanding greater cognitive effort, therefore allowing less attention to be devoted to form.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What seems to be happening is that the goals of complexity and accuracy compete for limited information processing resources and that what is achievable depends on the precise allocational decisions made.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the lower level of his performance was noticed, his results were removed from the data set.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The framework also suggests that midtask manipulations may also influence the balance among the goals of fluency, complexity, and accuracy.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But these conclusions are based on just three tasks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subsequently, one subject had to be discarded when it was realized that the college had not applied its own selection policy to him.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They were, quite simply, devices for the transmission of neutral and arbitrary information.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes' (1989) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But we interpret this finding to suggest naturalness of discourse, in that native speakers also engage in a greater use of such linguistic behaviors to enable them to cope with the problem of real-time.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this way, the risk of basing the research project on unpopular and unproductive tasks was reduced.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Crookes (1989) seemed to be testing for specific increases in accuracy, whereas we were more interested in detecting a more generalized accuracy effect.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes (1989) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A generally similar pattern of results is reported in Alvarez-Ossario (1994).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Alvarez-Ossario (1994)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even so, it must be borne in mind that the effect, in such a case, was on accuracy, not on complexity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Crookes (1989) looked for specific effects on a wide range of variables, whereas the present study used a more global measure based on all contributory influences on error and correctness.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes (1989) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Crookes' (1989) tasks, for example, a LEGO assembly, were classroom tasks and did not have much connection with the subjects' real lives.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes' (1989) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In any case here, even if there were an effect that has not been detected in the present study, the underlying cause may be task familiarity, or simply improvements in proficiency over time.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, it may be that the subjects under the unplanned condition, who would benefit most from the use of techniques to protect time for ongoing planning, are unable to exploit them.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The students were following courses of instruction, and it may be that this instruction was having an effect.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may simply be, therefore, that the use of a dependent variable such as error-free clauses is more sensitive to an overall accuracy effect, a proposal perhaps consistent with the weaker finding in this area than for complexity.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the next condition, detailed planning, seemed to lead to a level of pressure too great for subjects to cope with all aspects of performance, with the result that prioritizing decisions had to be made.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The most comparable study (Crookes, 1989) reported a complexity effect, but no significant differences for accuracy.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes, 1989 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“First, these results contrast with those of Crookes (1989) in that here planning is associated with a greater degree of accuracy, at least some of the time.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crookes (1989) source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It also suggests that midtask and posttask activities are important.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In passing, it should be noted that the Narrative task is less effective at meeting this criterion of real-world connection, as there is obviously an arbitrary, detached quality to producing an imaginary story based on a set of (relatively) unrelated photographs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although Ellis (1987) reported such an effect, it was for a study that focused on only one language form (the past tense, so that no complexity dimension was involved) and for which the experimental conditions (talking, alone, into a tape recorder) might be thought to favor accuracy.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis (1987) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First of all, the contrast in findings may be due to the nature of the measures used.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before the study proper began, a number ol candidate tasks were piloted at a neighboring college in order to determine for each of the three types which task was the most productive of language and the most enjoyable to do.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
If there was a practice effect of consistent strength over the three visits of the study, the Personal Information Exchange task, always completed in the second week, would be affected to the same degree as the averaged performance on the other two tasks.
“It was assumed that if there was a practice effect of consistent strength over the three visits of the study, the Personal Information Exchange task, always completed in the second week, would be affected to the same degree as the averaged performance on the other two tasks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Attention is limited in capacity and its use to achieve one goal can reduce the capacity remaining for the achievement of other goals.
“The general perspective in this article is that attention is limited in capacity and that its use to achieve one goal can reduce the capacity remaining for the achievement of other goals.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The tasks were closely based on types commonly used in classrooms.
“This was unproblematic, as each of the tasks was closely based on types commonly used in classrooms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The three tasks used are valid representatives of the Personal, Narrative, and Decision task types.
“These three tasks were chosen because they vary the importance of background knowledge and general familiarity, on the one hand, and inherent structure, on the other.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency used validly capture those constructs.
“the present study used a more global measure based on all contributory influences on error and correctness”
The paper relies on this without support.
The planning conditions (no planning, undetailed, detailed) successfully manipulated planning time and cognitive load as intended.
“detailed planning causes subjects to structure their subsequent task contributions in a more ambitious manner”
The paper relies on this without support.
The subjects' reactions (Narrative task most difficult) reflect actual cognitive difficulty.
“a proposal consistent with the reactions of the subjects, who thought the Narrative task most difficult but produced the most complex language while doing it”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The ways in which information is distributed among learners, and the ways in which they must exchange information can impact learner interaction (Doughty & Pica 1986;Foster & Skehan 1996;Ellis 2003;Pica et al. 2006;Gilabert, Barón & Llanes 2009).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Foster & Skehan 1996
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Second, our choice to use 'accuracy as a reflection to focus on form' (Foster & Skehan, 1996, p. 280) might have been too conservative to get a full insight into the effects of task repetition.”
From Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT (2016) · cites this paper as Foster & Skehan, 1996
Citations
Cites
The Practice of English Language Teaching
Harmer, J. (1983) · Cited by 5,930
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 5,435 · cited 1×
“Skehan (1992, 1996), following Schmidt (1990), takes fluency to reflect the primacy of meaning and the capacity to cope with real-time communication.”
BackgroundCorpus, Concordance, Collocation
Green, P. N. (1992) · Cited by 3,465
Corpus, Concordance, Collocation
Odlin, T., & Sinclair, J. M. (1994) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/330144 · Cited by 2,308
Allen, J. P., & Prabhu, N. S. (1988) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587293 · Cited by 1,626
A Framework for the Implementation of Task-based Instruction
SKEHAN, P. (1996) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/17.1.38 · Cited by 1,547
Self-citationThree Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587368 · Cited by 866
Attention, Memory, and the “Noticing” Hypothesis
Robinson, P. (1995) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x · Cited by 745
The practice of English language teaching
Bekeshova, K. (1991) · Cited by 635
Attending to Form and Content in the Input: An Experiment in Consciousness
VanPatten, B. (1990) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100009177 · Cited by 629
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Norusis, 1990, SPSS PC user's manual, Version 4
- Plough, 1993, Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice, 35
- Harrison, 1986, Innovations in language testing, 72
- Alvarez-Ossario, 1996, The effect of planning in L2 Spanish narratives
- Willis, 1988, Collins COBUILD English Course: Book 1
- Skehan, 1996, The influence of post-task activities and planning on task-based performance
- Bygate, 1987, Speaking
- Long, 1989, Task, group, and task-group interaction, University of Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 8, 1
- Schmidt, 1994, Deconstructing consciousness: In search of useful definitions for applied linguistics, AILA Review, 11, 11
- Hunt, 1966, Recent measures in syntactic development, Elementary English, 43, 732
- Pica, 1993, Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice, 9
- Duff, 1986, Talking to learn, 147
- Foster, 1994, Discoursal outcomes of small-group work in an EFL classroom
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vocabulary in Language Teaching
Meyer, L. L., & Schmitt, N. (2002) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3588334 · Cited by 1,449
Modelling Second Language Performance: Integrating Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency, and Lexis
Skehan, P. (2009) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amp047 · Cited by 1,161
Self-citationAutomatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing
Lu, X. (2010) · International Journal of Corpus Linguistics · doi:10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu · Cited by 1,127
“Syntactic complexity is manifest in second language writing in terms of how varied and sophisticated the production units or grammatical structures are (Foster & Skehan 1996, Ortega 2003, Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998).”
BackgroundCollaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections
Storch, N. (2005) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002 · Cited by 1,052
“Foster and Skehan (1999), based on their previous research, conclude that this is a reliable measure, correlating well with other measures of complexity.”
BackgroundTask‐based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings
Ellis, R. (2009) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x · Cited by 1,031
“Foster and Skehan (1996), and others, have also shown that implementation variables such as planning also influence the way a task is performed in predictable ways.”
BackgroundVocabulary in Language Teaching
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108569057 · Cited by 958
Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/136216889700100302 · Cited by 723
“In addition, Foster and Skehan (1996) found that providing subjects with guidance for pre-task planning was associated with greater complexity of language during the task, while unguided planning favoured accuracy.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationPrinciples of instructed language learning
Ellis, R. (2005) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006 · Cited by 682
Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners
Kormos, J., & Dénes (2004) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001 · Cited by 679
“students' output in a reliable manner (see Bygate, 1999; Foster, and Skehan, 1996; Skehan and Foster,”
MethodLanguage Testing and Validation
Weir, C. J. (2005) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230514577 · Cited by 1,050
Pronunciation Fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.42 · Cited by 656
The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/136216880000400305 · Cited by 562
“…in language learning tasks as basic conceptual units to analyse learning behaviours that lead to second language (L2) acquisition (e.g. Bygate, 1996, 1999; Candlin and Murphy, 1987; Crookes and Gass, 1993a, 1993b; Foster, 1998; Foster and Skehan, 1996; Long and © Arnold 2000 1362–1688(00)LR071.”
BackgroundFreed, B. F., Segalowitz, N. S., & Dewey, D. P. (2004) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263104262064 · Cited by 549
“The notion of fluency, applied to both first language ~L1! and L2 use, is one of those topics about which there are many eagerly and enthusiastically expressed opinions+ For example, an informal survey, in which first-year undergraduate students in a course on language and society were asked to define the term “fluenc…”
BackgroundPair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532209104670 · Cited by 475
“Complexity was measured through proportion of clauses to T units, which Foster and Skehan (1996), based on their previous research, conclude is a reliable measure, correlating well with other measures of complexity.”
MethodLanguage Testing and Validation: An Evidence-Based Approach
Weir, C. J. (2004) · Cited by 463
Discourse Functions and Syntactic Complexity in Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication
Sotillo, S. M. (2000) · Language learning & technology · Cited by 460
Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency: How Distinct?
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T. F., & O'Hagan, S. (2007) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amm017 · Cited by 443
“In the studies of global accuracy reported in Foster and Skehan (1996) and Skehan and Foster (1999), no inter-coder reliability measures were reported.”
BackgroundInfluentialAttention and Memory during SLA
Robinson, P. (2003) · The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1002/9780470756492.ch19 · Cited by 402
Second Language Fluency: Judgments on Different Tasks
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00282.x · Cited by 388
“This finding is similar to that of Foster and Skehan (1996), who found, in comparing three oral tasks in an unplanned condition, that a picture narrative contained more silence than either a personal information exchange task or a collaborative decision-making task.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialInteraction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377
“The ways in which information is distributed among learners, and the ways in which they must exchange information can impact learner interaction (Doughty & Pica 1986; Foster & Skehan 1996; Ellis 2003; Pica et al. 2006; Gilabert, Barón & Llanes 2009).”
BackgroundTask Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x · Cited by 375
“Two studies (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997) explored the extent to which cognitive complexity, operationalized as familiar and unfamiliar task content, would impact on task performance.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationTHE EFFECTS OF PLANNING ON FLUENCY, COMPLEXITY, AND ACCURACY IN SECOND LANGUAGE NARRATIVE WRITING
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263104026130 · Cited by 392
“We first consider the results for the independent variables and then consider the three research questions+We also examine differences between the results for the effects of planning on written narratives with the parallel results obtained for oral narratives, as reported by Yuan and Ellis ~2003!+ To facilitate this d…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialTask-Based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019) · doi:10.1017/9781108643689 · Cited by 407
Self-citationThe influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1191/136216899672186140 · Cited by 342
“But, interestingly, Foster and Skehan (1996) report conflicting results for accuracy to those of Crookes.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationA Longitudinal Study of ESL Learners' Fluency and Comprehensibility Development
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2007) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amm041 · Cited by 365
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168810383329 · Cited by 334
“For example, Foster and Skehan (1996) have argued that the trade-off is between accuracy and complexity.”
BackgroundDECONSTRUCTING COMPREHENSIBILITY
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263112000150 · Cited by 325
“For example, Fulcher ( 1996 ) used grounded theory to generate a thick description of L2 fl uency at different ability levels.”
MethodAPTITUDE AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Robinson, P. (2005) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190505000036 · Cited by 187
“…and complexity of L2 production, and also on the amount of interaction, and uptake from task relevant input (see e.g., Bygate, 2001; R. Ellis, 2004; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Hardy & Moore, 2004; Ortega, 1999; Rahimpour, 1999; Robinson, 1995a, 2001a, 2003b; Robinson, Ting & Urwin, 1995; Skehan, 1998,…”
BackgroundIDENTIFYING THE IMPACT OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNERS' RESPONSES ON ESL QUESTION DEVELOPMENT
McDonough, K. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263105050047 · Cited by 309
“…such as during collaborative language production tasks ~Fotos, 1993; Kowal & Swain, 1994; Storch, 2001; Swain, 1998!, tasks that include planning time ~Foster & Skehan, 1996! or posttask activities ~Skehan & Foster, 1997!, and interaction with negative feedback ~Linnell, 1995; Nobuyoshi &…”
BackgroundOng, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 · Cited by 302
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.006 · Cited by 316
“The basic premise underlying such examinations is that syntactic complexity can be used to directly measure L2 learner proficiency (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Lu, 2011; Ortega, 2003; Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, & Kim, 1998).”
BackgroundTask-based language teaching theory and practice
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020) · Cited by 284
Self-citationPosition paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward
Ellis, R. (2017) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444817000179 · Cited by 267
PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263112000356 · Cited by 298
Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/136216880000400303 · Cited by 260
“Where time has been investigated, it has been the time available to learners at the pre-task stage, e.g. as time for planning or rehearsal (for example Ellis, 1987; Crookes, 1989; Foster and Skehan, 1996) rather than time allowed during the task itself.”
Backgroundde Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x · Cited by 250
“Both pre-task planning (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) and task repetition (Bygate, 2001; Bygate & Samuda, 2005; Lynch & Maclean, 2000, 2001) support fluency by freeing up attentional resources.”
BackgroundThe effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008 · Cited by 251
Johnson, M. D. (2017) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001 · Cited by 266
de la Fuente, M. J. (2006) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1191/1362168806lr196oa · Cited by 240
“According to Foster and Skehan (1996) and Skehan and Foster (1997; 1999), structured tasks that revolve around familiar information lead to both greater fluency and accuracy.”
BackgroundInfluentialRobinson, P. (2001) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1177/026765830101700405 · Cited by 107
“…from pursuing the issue, and I argue that it is similarly susceptible to empirical investigation in the domain of SLA. tasks (see Long, 1989; Foster and Skehan, 1996; Niwa, 2000; Robinson, 2001a; 2001b); and • conditions specified pedagogically and delivered methodologically in classroom…”
BackgroundTask Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A Classroom‐Based Study
Révész, A. (2011) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x · Cited by 245
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T. F., & Elder, C. (2001) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00160 · Cited by 239
“The measures used in Skehan and Foster (1999) and Foster and Skehan (1996), with minor modifications, were adopted in analyzing the test discourse.”
MethodResultInfluentialSaito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2015) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716414000502 · Cited by 255
“Thus, longer speech samples may be needed (cf. 3 min in Lu, 2012; and 5 min in Foster & Skehan, 1996; and Yuan & Ellis, 2003) in order to obtain a more refined picture of lexical, grammatical, and temporal correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness.”
BackgroundThe effects of task complexity on learner–learner interaction
Kim, Y. (2009) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003 · Cited by 213
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168807084492 · Cited by 214
“This finding supports Sangarun’s (2005) findings and conflicts with the null accuracy effects reported for guided planning by Foster and Skehan (1996) and the lack of a difference between the language and content focus found by Foster and Skehan (1999). The difference may in part be explained by the fact that the oper…”
ResultInfluentialTeachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching
Edwards, C., & Willis, J. R. (2005) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230522961 · Cited by 214
“● the robbery task should achieve the same goals, as the students are more familiar with describing people than describing location (Foster and Skehan, 1996).”
BackgroundEffect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study
Oxford, R. L., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H.-J. (2004) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral.2004.001 · Cited by 217
Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions
Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001 · Cited by 116
Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production
Gilabert, R. (2007) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral.2007.010 · Cited by 218
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005 · Cited by 199
The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching
Ellis, R. (2002) · Kansai University Institutional Repository (Kansai University) · Cited by 191
Perceptions of L2 Fluency by Native and Non-native Speakers of English
Rossiter, M. J. (2009) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.65.3.395 · Cited by 192
“…above), from studies of the effects of particular task types and task structures on speaking fluency (e.g., Bygate, 1996; Ejzenberg, 1992; Ellis, 2003; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Nation, 1989; Skehan & Foster, 1999), and from advances in corpusbased research (e.g., O’Keefe, McCarthy, & Carter, 2007).”
BackgroundLambert, C., & Zhang, G. Q. (2019) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12560 · Cited by 196
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x · Cited by 192
Self-citationAn investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research
Polio, C. G., & Shea, M. C. (2014) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003 · Cited by 186
A framework for second language vocabulary assessment
Read, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2001) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/026553220101800101 · Cited by 223
“A third perspective is represented by the work of Skehan and his associates (Skehan, 1996, 1998; Foster and Skehan, 1996), which did not set out to investigate vocabulary as such.”
BackgroundAlexopoulou, T., Michel, M. C., Murakami, A., & Meurers, D. (2017) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12232 · Cited by 179
“In addition to task complexity, task type (e.g., narrative, argumentative) has been shown to impact in particular on linguistic complexity (Foster and Skehan, 1996; Vyatkina, 2012; Yoon and Polio, 2016; Bouwer et al., 2015; Lu, 2011).”
BackgroundThe role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x · Cited by 173
“…accuracy, complexity and fluency measures have been widely used in task-based research and have proven to reflect the characteristics of accuracy and grammatical complexity of students' output in a reliable manner (see Bygate, 1999; Robinson, 1995; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997).”
BackgroundMethodBygate, M. (1999) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/136216889900300302 · Cited by 189
“One direction has been to explore the extent to which tasks and task conditions can affect the way learners process the target language (Foster and Skehan, 1996; Skehan and Foster, 1997; Mehnert, 1998; Robinson, 1995).”
BackgroundAwareness, different learning conditions, and second language development
Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716404001134 · Cited by 168
“…provision of immediate feedback intrinsic to the task (±feedback, further manipulated with + explicit or + implicit; Loschky & Bley–Vroman, 1993), and presence of a pretask consisting of explicit information on the target grammatical structure (±explicit pretask; e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
BackgroundJohnson, M. D., Mercado, L. A., & Acevedo, A. (2012) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011 · Cited by 187
Brown, A., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. F. (2005) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2005.tb01982.x · Cited by 181
“…reported measures of grammatical accuracy of learner speech in terms of either: • global accuracy (i.e., identifying any and all types of error; e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1999) • specific types of errors (e.g., Ortega, 1999; Robinson, 1995; Wigglesworth, 1997) The…”
BackgroundInfluentialWang, Z. (2014) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.02wan · Cited by 164
Tasks Versus Conditions: Two Perspectives on Task Research and Their Implications for Pedagogy
Skehan, P. (2016) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190515000100 · Cited by 162
“It was first proposed, post hoc, after Foster and Skehan (1996) and Skehan and Foster (1997), where its presence was inferred after performances on certain tasks showed greater accuracy and fluency.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationPhase Transitions in Development of Writing Fluency From a Complex Dynamic Systems Perspective
Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12033 · Cited by 160
Creativity and Narrative Task Performance: An Exploratory Study
Albert, Á., & Kormos, J. (2004) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00256.x · Cited by 170
Task Difficulty in Oral Speech Act Production
Taguchi, N. (2007) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/aml051 · Cited by 162
Markee, N. P., & Kunitz, S. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12019 · Cited by 160
Effects of Pretask Modeling on Attention to Form and Question Development
Kim, Y. (2012) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.52 · Cited by 152
Zones of Interactional Transition in ESL Classes
Markee, N. (2004) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-20-.x · Cited by 161
Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production
Fukuta, J. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815570142 · Cited by 147
“The priorities are considered to be manipulable by repetition, pre-task planning, and manipulating the task takers’ familiarity and strength of tasks’ story line (e.g. Bygate, 1996, 1999; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 1999; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodLearner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance
O’Sullivan, B. (2002) · Language Testing · doi:10.1191/0265532202lt205oa · Cited by 155
“There have been a number of studies which have shown that the grammar of a learner’s interlanguage varies under different task conditions (Shohamy, 1983; Foster and Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999).”
BackgroundMethodEllis, R. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001058 · Cited by 145
“There is now, for example, a very substantial body of research on tasks in SLA (e.g., Berwick, 1990; Crookes & Rulon, 1985; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Pica & Doughty, 1985).”
BackgroundTorky, S. A. E. F. (2006) · Cited by 136
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2013) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249 · Cited by 140
“Tasks In previous research (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997, 1999), it became clear that narrative tasks were the most difficult tasks with which to demonstrate experimental effects.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationChik, A., & Benson, P. (2006) · Cited by 136
Ahmadian, M. J. (2011) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168811425433 · Cited by 141
“For example, whereas Foster and Skehan (1996) have argued that the trade-off is between accuracy and complexity, Wendel (1997) has proposed that the trade-off involves fluency and accuracy, with online planning enhancing accuracy and pre-task planning assisting fluency.”
Backgroundden Branden, K. V. (2009) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00241.x · Cited by 133
Capturing Accuracy in Second Language Performance: The Case for a Weighted Clause Ratio
Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2016) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190515000082 · Cited by 134
“The communication unit, or c-unit (Loban, 1966), was designed specifically to cope with fragmentary oral data and is widely used (e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996; Lin & Hedgcock, 1996) in spite of being rather vaguely defined.”
MethodSelf-citationRepeating a Monologue Under Increasing Time Pressure: Effects on Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy
Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.232 · Cited by 131
Chapter 4. Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling
Pang, F. S., & Skehan, P. (2014) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.04pan · Cited by 129
Self-citationA multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance
Nitta, R., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532213514401 · Cited by 136
“Under these cognitive principles, task-based researchers have investigated how methods of pre-task planning influence oral performance (e.g., different lengths of planning time in Mehnert, 1998; unguided/guided planning in Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
BackgroundMethodThe Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching
Nuzzo, E., & Velásquez, D. C. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327 · Cited by 138
Dörnyei, Z. (2019) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.13.04dor · Cited by 124
“…the significance of the language learning task as the basic conceptual unit to analyse learning behaviours, student performance and the ensuing L2 acquisition (e.g., Bygate, 1999; Crookes & Gass, 1993a, 1993b; Foster, 1998; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan, 1998a, 1998b; Skehan & Foster, 1997, 1999).”
BackgroundGalante, A., & Thomson, R. I. (2016) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.290 · Cited by 126
“Foster and Skehan (1996) found that a picture narrative task contained more silence and pauses than a personal information exchange task or a collaborative decision-making task.”
BackgroundTasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogical spaces
Samuda, V. (2015) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.8.10sam · Cited by 123
Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: what does the test-taker have to offer?
Elder, C., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. F. (2002) · Language Testing · doi:10.1191/0265532202lt235oa · Cited by 123
“Skehan and his colleagues (e.g., Foster and Skehan, 1996; Skehan and Foster, 1997; 1999) have proposed that more complex tasks direct learners’ attention to context and divert attention away from form.”
BackgroundThe Role of Cognitive and Affective Factors in Measures of L2 Writing
Zabihi, R. (2018) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088317735836 · Cited by 124
“Therefore, following Foster and Skehan (1996), writing complexity was measured in this study by counting the number of subordinate clauses to T-units.”
MethodOral Fluency: The Neglected Component in the Communicative Language Classroom
Rossiter, M. J., Derwing, T. M., Manimtim, L. G., & Thomson, R. I. (2010) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.4.583 · Cited by 134
“…(to raise awareness of fluency features, [e.g., Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, & Demecheleer, 2006]); the provision of pre-task planning time (Foster & Skehan, 1996, 1999; Mehnert, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 2005; Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005; Yuan & Ellis, 2003); the imposition of time constraints…”
Investigating L2 Performance in Text Chat
Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amq007 · Cited by 117
Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat
Adams, R., Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Newton, J. (2015) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.002 · Cited by 56
Linguistic Characteristics of ESL Writing in Task-based E-mail Activities
Li, Y. (2000) · System · doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00009-9 · Cited by 123
Data Collection in SLA Research
Chaudron, C. (2003) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470756492.ch22 · Cited by 118
Using observation checklists to validate speaking-test tasks
O’Sullivan, B., Weir, C. J., & Saville, N. (2002) · Language Testing · doi:10.1191/0265532202lt219oa · Cited by 118
“· Task performance (method effect): where aspects of the task are systematically manipulated; e.g., planning time, pre- or post-task operations, etc. (Foster and Skehan, 1996; 1999; Wigglesworth, 1997; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Upshur and Turner, 1999).”
The Role of Peer Support in ESL Students' Accomplishment of Oral Academic Tasks
Kobayashi, M. (2003) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.59.3.337 · Cited by 113
The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions
Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2006) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004 · Cited by 110
“Of course, it is always possible that different kinds of planning would have a different impact on fluency as noted by Foster and Skehan (1996) .”
BackgroundInfluentialNeumann, H. B., & McDonough, K. (2014) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.009 · Cited by 113
The Effects of Mode and Task Complexity on Second Language Production
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2017) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12228 · Cited by 120
The Effects of Different Lengths of Pretask Planning Time on L2 Learners' Oral Test Performance
Li, L., Chen, J., & Lan, S. (2014) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.159 · Cited by 114
Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance
Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A.-M. (2019) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- Foster, P., & Skehan, P.
- Affiliations
- University of West London (GB)
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 299-323
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W2001528051
- Cited by
- 1,147
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 99 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 80 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 50
- FWCI
- 28.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- task-based language teaching, task planning, second language performance, fluency, complexity, accuracy, task type, narrative task, decision-making tasks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
