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
Items 101–200 of 1,141
Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form
Nik, A., Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2012) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.001 · Cited by 60
Social context and resources for language learning
Palfreyman, D. M. (2006) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.05.001 · Cited by 105
The Role of Attention in Monitoring Second Language Speech Production
Kormos, J. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00120 · Cited by 106
“…in task-based language learning have examined how task characteristics (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1996), planning conditions (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1996) and task repetition (Bygate, 1996) affect whether L2 learners devote more attention to form or to the meaning…”
BackgroundInfluentialComputerized Task‐Based Exposure, Explicitness, Type of Feedback, and Spanish L2 Development
Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00225.x · Cited by 105
An Investigation of the Effectiveness and Validity of Planning Time in Speaking Test Tasks
Wigglesworth, G., & Elder, C. (2010) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15434300903031779 · Cited by 109
Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588220601118503 · Cited by 104
“In this study, learners communicated with their partners about a decision-making task, which seems to enhance the interaction between learners (Ellis, 2003); however, task familiarity and task complexity can influence the performance concerning learning objectives (Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
BackgroundPSYCHOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE UTILITY OF METALINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE IN SECOND LANGUAGE PRODUCTION
Hu, G. (2002) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263102003017 · Cited by 102
“Similar results were obtained in another study (Grigg, 1986) that examined the effects of task, time pressure, and rule knowledge on English L2 learners’ use of several morphological structures. Grigg compared the learners’ production to their ability to state the rules for the structures but failed to find any signif…”
Result(2013) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt · Cited by 102
Expanding Horizons and Unresolved Conundrums: Language Testing and Assessment
Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2006) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/40264517 · Cited by 101
To What Extent Do Popular ESL Textbooks Incorporate Oral Fluency and Pragmatic Development
Diepenbroek, L. G., & Derwing, T. M. (2014) · TESL Canada Journal · doi:10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1149 · Cited by 106
“Preplanning has been shown to be an important strategy for fluency development (Foster & skehan, 1996, 1999), yet it has been ignored in the majority of the texts that we surveyed here.”
BackgroundPark, S. (2010) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168809346491 · Cited by 99
“Thus, completing a picture-based narrative may be a cognitively demanding task, allowing less attention to language (Long, 1991; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ellis, 2001; Williams, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTavakoli, P., & Hunter, A.-M. (2018) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168817708462 · Cited by 96
Vandommele, G., den Branden, K. V., Gorp, K. V., & Mæyer, S. D. (2017) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.010 · Cited by 94
Contexts of engagement: a discourse perspective on ‘intake’ and ‘pushed output’
Batstone, R. (2002) · System · doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(01)00055-0 · Cited by 100
Task Complexity, Cognitive Load, and L1 Speech
Lee, J. (2017) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amx054 · Cited by 95
Output practice in the L2 classroom
Muranoi, H. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511667275.005 · Cited by 91
Kırkgöz, Y. (2011) · The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology · Cited by 92
Morphological complexity in written L2 texts
Březina, V., & Pallotti, G. (2016) · Second language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658316643125 · Cited by 91
Development of Speech Fluency Over a Short Period of Time: Effects of Pedagogic Intervention
Tavakoli, P., Campbell, C., & McCormack, J. (2015) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.244 · Cited by 110
“…the impact of task design and performance conditions on fluency of task performance have reported that specific aspects of task design, e.g. task structure, have a significant impact on improving the fluency of L2 performance (Ellis & Yuan, 2005; Skehan & Foster, 1996; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008).”
Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2011.639884 · Cited by 111
“Following Foster and Skehan's ( 1996 ) procedure, overall accuracy was defined as freedom from error, operationalised as clauses in which ‘there is no error in syntax, morphology, or word order’ (p.”
MethodWriting in a foreign language: teaching and learning
O’Brien, T. (2004) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444804002113 · Cited by 86
“The texts with audience interaction had longer sentences, a consistently higher level of syntactic and lexical complexity but also a higher frequency of error (cf the “trade-off” between linguistic complexity and accuracy noted by Foster & Skehan (1996).”
BackgroundOn the Temporal Nature of Planning in L1 and L2 Composing
Manchón, R. M., & de Larios, J. R. (2007) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00428.x · Cited by 97
(2000) · ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa)
Do visual chunks and planning impact performance on the graph description task in the SPEAK exam?
Xi, X. (2005) · Language Testing · doi:10.1191/0265532205lt305oa · Cited by 89
“Some studies have found that the oral discourse elicited under planning conditions showed greater complexity (Crookes, 1989; Foster and Skehan, 1996) and fluency (Foster and Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998); however, there have been conflicting findings on the influence of planning on accuracy (Ellis,…”
InfluentialCommunicative Tasks, Conversational Interaction and Linguistic Form: An Empirical Study of Thai1
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2000) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb00893.x · Cited by 87
Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning: An Overview
Oxford, R. L. (2006) · Cited by 83
PRE-TASK PLANNING, WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY, AND L2 SPEECH PERFORMANCE
Tavares, M. D. G. G. (2011) · Organon · doi:10.22456/2238-8915.28842 · Cited by 82
“Following Foster and Skehan (1996), and Mehnert (1998), a cut-o# point of 1 second was considered optimal in determining silent pauses in L2 speech samples.”
BackgroundMethodHsu, H.-C. (2017) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amv032 · Cited by 33
Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x · Cited by 96
Self-citationPréfontaine, Y., & Kormos, J. (2015) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12186 · Cited by 90
LINGUISTIC DIMENSIONS OF L2 ACCENTEDNESS AND COMPREHENSIBILITY VARY ACROSS SPEAKING TASKS
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226311700016x · Cited by 93
“…speakers needed to draw on their linguistic resources to address a familiar and personal topic in the IELTS task, the picture task constrained the range of lexical items required for completing the narrative in a sequence without much choice in content and organization (see Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
BackgroundComplexity, accuracy, and fluency as indices of college-level L2 writers’ proficiency
Barrot, J. S., & Agdeppa, J. Y. (2020) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100510 · Cited by 85
Limited Attention Capacity and Cognition
Skehan, P. (2015) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.8.05ske · Cited by 84
Self-citationStengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2011) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral.2011.017 · Cited by 94
“Syntactic complexity may be measured by the Sub-clause Ratio (Foster and Skehan 1996), whereas Lexical Frequency Profiles (Laufer and Nation 1995), Giraud’s Index (Vermeer 2000) and Vocd (Malvern et al. 2004) are some of the measures that have been proposed for lexical richness.”
MethodVyatkina, N. (2013) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01421.x · Cited by 82
Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing
Rahimi, M. (2018) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818761465 · Cited by 88
“As such, to date, task production and quality are typically measured by computing the changes in syntactic complexity, grammatical accuracy, and fluency (e.g. Foster & Skehan, 1996; Kuiken & Vedder, 2012).”
BackgroundTheoretical Perspectives on Speaking
Bygate, M. (1998) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190500003469 · Cited by 90
“Thus Tonkyn (1996) is able to use longitudinal data sets to point to evidence of trade-offs between accuracy, fluency, and complexity, a picture that Foster and Skehan (1996) are also able to relate to the effects of task performance.”
BackgroundThe effect of topic familiarity on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second language writing
Yang, W., & Kim, Y. (2018) · Applied Linguistics Review · doi:10.1515/applirev-2017-0017 · Cited by 91
Second Language Speech Fluency
Tavakoli, P., & Wright, C. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108589109 · Cited by 101
Rahimi, M. (2008) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9139-5 · Cited by 78
Chapter 8. Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy
Skehan, P. (2014) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.08ske · Cited by 77
Self-citationTask-based learning: the interaction between tasks and learners
Murphy, J. L. (2003) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/57.4.352 · Cited by 77
Task difficulty in speaking tests
Fulcher, G., & Reiter, R. M. (2003) · Language Testing · doi:10.1191/0265532203lt259oa · Cited by 77
“Foster and Skehan (1996) and Skehan and Foster (1997) report justication for the claims using three classroom activities: personally oriented tasks, narrative tasks, and tasks where a choice and justi - cation are required, scored for uency, accuracy and complexity.”
BackgroundLumley, T., & O’Sullivan, B. (2005) · Language Testing · doi:10.1191/0265532205lt303oa · Cited by 80
Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview performance
O’Sullivan, B. (2000) · System · doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00018-x · Cited by 77
Suzukida, Y., & Saito, K. (2019) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168819858246 · Cited by 93
“, 2015) to elicit extemporaneous speech, other aspects of L2 speech research such as fluency research (Foster and Skehan, 1996; Skehan and Foster, 1999) have demonstrated that the quality of the speech produced is attributed to the nature of a task.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialTask-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom?
Bruton, A. (2005) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571730585200091 · Cited by 78
“In the Fotos (1993) and the Fotos and Ellis (1991) research”
Saito, K. (2020) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12387 · Cited by 74
The influence of personality and anxiety on the oral performance of Japanese speakers of English
Oya, T., Manalo, E., & Greenwood, J. (2004) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1063 · Cited by 74
Chapter 3. Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat
Adams, R., & Alwi, N. A. N. M. (2014) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.6.03ada · Cited by 26
Kang, S., & Lee, J.-H. (2019) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2019.08.001 · Cited by 81
Inoue, C. (2016) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2015.1130079 · Cited by 70
Exploring the potential of ChatGPT in assessing L2 writing accuracy for research purposes
Pfau, A., Polio, C. G., & Xu, Y. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100083 · Cited by 91
Vyatkina, N., Hirschmann, H., & Golcher, F. (2015) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.006 · Cited by 70
Huensch, A., & Tracy–Ventura, N. (2016) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716416000424 · Cited by 83
“A final direction for future work is to investigate the relationship between L1 and L2 fluency in a variety of tasks (Derwing, Rossiter, Munro, & Thompson, 2004; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005).”
BackgroundInvestigating the Effects of Planning on L2 Text-Chat Performance
Hsu, H.-C. (2012) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.11139/cj.29.4.619-638 · Cited by 69
Implementing Task-Based Language Teaching
Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511667190.015 · Cited by 67
Viet, N. G. (2014) · The Journal of AsiaTEFL · Cited by 61
The impact of vocabulary preparation on L2 listening comprehension, confidence and strategy use
Chang, A. C.-S. (2007) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.06.003 · Cited by 64
Iwashita, N. (2006) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0302_4 · Cited by 74
“For example, Foster and Skehan (1996) referred to grammatical complexity as elaboration and variation of syntactic patterning.”
BackgroundThe internal dimension of tasks
Manchón, R. M. (2014) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.7.02man · Cited by 63
Lei, L., Wen, J., & Yang, X. (2022) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100962 · Cited by 74
Developing Cooperative Learning in the Efl/Esl Secondary Classroom
Sachs, G. T., Candlin, C. N., & Rose, K. R. (2003) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/003368820303400305 · Cited by 64
“Such planning is said to produce improvements in fluency, accuracy, and complexity of student performance (Foster & Skehan, 1996, Bygate, Swain & Skehan (in press)).”
BackgroundChou, M. (2016) · International Journal of Listening · doi:10.1080/10904018.2015.1098542 · Cited by 86
“…as complexity of language, accuracy, and fluency, affected the use of attentional resources during task completion (e.g., Bygate, 1999; Ellis, 2000; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997) or how types of focused tasks, such as structure-based production tasks, comprehension tasks, or…”
BackgroundAcoustic characteristics and learner profiles of low-, mid- and high-level second language fluency
Saito, K., Ilkan, M., Magne, V., Tran, M. T. C., & Suzuki, S. (2018) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716417000571 · Cited by 71
“…linguistic formulation and production (resulting in more accurate and fluent language) compared to interview tasks, where L2 learners simply talk about familiar topics with a greater focus on the conceptualization of the intended message (resulting in more complex language; Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
BackgroundAhmadian, M. J., Tavakoli, M., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2015) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2012.681795 · Cited by 53
“The notion of task structure first emerged from the post-hoc interpretations of the findings of a series of studies (Foster and Skehan 1996; Skehan and Foster 1999) that originally aimed to examine the degree to which familiar and unfamiliar task content would affect L2 oral production.”
BackgroundThe impact of pre-task planning on speaking test performance for English-medium university admission
O’Grady, S. (2019) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532219826604 · Cited by 60
“In their seminal paper, Foster and Skehan (1996) compared the impact of planning on three tasks (a personal information task, a picture-based narrative, and a decision-making task) and found that the task involving personal information recorded the highest CAF results, and was least impacted by the…”
Odinokaya, M. A., Krepkaia, T. N., Sheredekina, O., & Bernavskaya, M. V. (2019) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci9030187 · Cited by 71
Synchronous Versus Asynchronous CMC and Transfer to Japanese Oral Performance
Hirotani, M. (2009) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.1558/cj.v26i2.413-438 · Cited by 60
Strategic and unpressured within-task planning and their associations with working memory
Li, S., & Fu, M. (2018) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168816684367 · Cited by 52
“Previous studies found that in comparison with no planning, strategic planning led to greater fluency (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998) but unpressured within-task planning resulted in less fluency (Ahmadian, 2012a; Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialPragmatic aspects of task-performance: the case of argumentation
Németh, N., & Kormos, J. (2001) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/136216880100500303 · Cited by 59
“Although a number of researchers have investigated participants’ performance across various types of tasks (e.g. Bygate, 1999; Foster and Skehan, 1996; Robinson, 1995; Robinson, Ting and Urwin, 1996; Skehan and Foster, 1996), no studies have compared learners’ performance in the same type of task…”
BackgroundZuniga, M., & Simard, D. (2019) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1007/s10936-018-9587-2 · Cited by 57
“, Foster and Skehan 1996) and complexity increase (e.g., Crookes 1989; Ellis 1987; Foster and Skehan 1996; Ortega 1999; Yuan and Ellis 2003), and such an increase in complexity fosters self-repair production (van Hest 1996).”
BackgroundAssessing L2 task performance: Understanding effects of task design
Tavakoli, P. (2009) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.02.013 · Cited by 57
Research into practice: Scaffolding learning processes to improve speaking performance
Goh, C. C. M. (2017) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444816000483 · Cited by 79
“Classroom research has shown positive effects of pre-task planning on language complexity and fluency, particularly in monologic tasks (e.g. Ellis 1987; Foster & Skehan 1996; Skehan & Foster 1997, 2005; Mehnert 1998; Ortega 1999; Yuan & Ellis 2003).”
Mota, M. B. (2003) · doi:10.5007/fragmentos.v24i0.7659 · Cited by 52
Tabari, M. A. (2016) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-016-0015-6 · Cited by 60
Task closure and task complexity effects on L2 written performance
Lee, J. (2020) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100777 · Cited by 57
Ghahderijani, B. H., Namaziandost, E., Tavakoli, M., Kumar, T., & Magizov, R. R. (2021) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-021-00144-3 · Cited by 56
“In the current research, speaking accuracy was calculated by dividing the number of error-free clauses by the total amount of independent clauses, sub-clausal units, and subordinate clauses and multiplying the result by 100 (Foster & Skehan, 1996 as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005).”
MethodWorking memory and second language learning
Wen, Z. (2012) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00290.x · Cited by 105
Roquet, H., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amv050 · Cited by 54
Chon, Y. V., Shin, D., & Kim, G. E. (2020) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102408 · Cited by 84
Oral fluency in a second language: A research agenda for the next ten years
Foster, P. (2020) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s026144482000018x · Cited by 68
Self-citationGodfroid, A., & Andringa, S. J. (2023) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12620 · Cited by 51
Geng, X., & Ferguson, G. (2013) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.09.005 · Cited by 55
Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the argumentative writing of ESL and EFL learners
Barrot, J. S., & Gabinete, M. K. L. (2019) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2017-0012 · Cited by 57
Self-assessment, preparation and response time on a computerized oral proficiency test
Malabonga, V. A., KENYON, D. M., & Carpenter, H. S. (2005) · Language Testing · doi:10.1191/0265532205lt297oa · Cited by 51
Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks
Tavakoli, P. (2014) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.7.09tav · Cited by 57
COGNITIVE APTITUDES AND L2 SPEAKING PROFICIENCY
Grañena, G. (2018) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263118000256 · Cited by 56
Cognitive Task Complexity and L2 Narrative Writing Performance
Farahani, A. A. K., & Meraji, S. R. (2011) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.2.2.445-456 · Cited by 48
“As regards syntactic complexity, the findings of the present investigation aligned with those of previous research regarding syntactic complexity (Ellis & Yuan; 2004; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999; Sangarun, 2005; Skehan & Foster, 1997, 2005; Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005; Yuan & Ellis, 2003).”
InfluentialXi, X. (2010) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532209346454 · Cited by 52
“…elicited under planning conditions in classroom settings showed greater complexity (Crookes, 1989; Foster and Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan and Foster, 1997, 1999) and fluency (Crookes, 1989; Foster and Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan and Foster, 1997, 1999).”
BackgroundInfluentialReconsidering the development of the discourse completion test in interlanguage pragmatics
Labben, A. (2016) · Pragmatics Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) · doi:10.1075/prag.26.1.04lab · Cited by 48
“Investigating the effects of planning and task type on second language performance, Foster and Skehan (1996) report considerable effects of planning on fluency and complexity.”
Backgroundvan de Guchte, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M. A. H., & Bimmel, P. (2017) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168817735543 · Cited by 49
“Other researchers did not focus on a particular structure but investigated the effects of combined planning instructions focused on both content, language and organization (Crookes, 1988, 1989; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Park, 2010; Wendel, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003).”
BackgroundKhalil, A.-H. A., & Khalil, M. (2011) · Georgetown University-Graduate School of Arts & Sciences · Cited by 48
Lan, G., Lucas, K., & Sun, Y. (2019) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.102116 · Cited by 48
Aloesnita, N. M. A. N., & Alwi, N. A. N. M. (2010) · Cited by 48
Interaction, Feedback and Task Research in Second Language Learning
Mackey, A. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108589284 · Cited by 62
Weir, C. J., & Wu, J. R. W. (2006) · Language Testing · doi:10.1191/0265532206lt326oa · Cited by 51
The Effect of Pre-Task Planning Time on L2 Learners’ Narrative Writing Performance
Seyyedi, K., Ismail, S. A. M. M., Orang, M., & Sharafi-Nejad, M. (2013) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v6n12p1 · Cited by 47
“These trade-off impacts have been seen between accuracy and fluency, and between accuracy and complexity (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Yuan & Ellis, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialDeveloping English language learners’ oral production with a digital game-based mobile application
Wang, Z., & Han, F. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232671 · Cited by 59
“According to [43], there are five types of repair, including reformulation, replacement, repetition, false start, and hesitation.”
BackgroundCreativity and Narrative Task Performance: An Exploratory Study
Albert, Á., & Kormos, J. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00643.x · Cited by 46
“MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) studied the influence of anxiety on the quality of self-descriptions in L2.”
Background
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
