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 201–300 of 1,141
Task Planning and Oral L2 Production: A Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis
Johnson, M. D., & Tabari, M. A. (2022) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amac026 · Cited by 25
Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and the Development of L2 Speech Production
Weissheimer, J., & Mota, M. B. (2009) · Issues in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.5070/l4172005115 · Cited by 42
Task difficulty and self‐repair behavior in second language oral production
Ahmadian, M., Abdolrezapour, P., & Ketabi, S. (2012) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2012.00313.x · Cited by 23
Differential Effects of Strategic Planning and Task Structure on L2 Writing Outcomes
Tabari, M. A. (2020) · Reading & Writing Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10573569.2019.1637310 · Cited by 38
“Moreover, these results accentuate the findings of previous studies (Allaw, 2016; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1999; Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005), which report that simpler monologic tasks along variables such as planning time give rise to substantial effects on accuracy.”
BackgroundResultFocus on form through task repetition in TBLT
van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815609616 · Cited by 50
“Possibly, learners did not experience the two talks as belonging to a ‘family’ (Skehan, 1996) and did not take advantage of the transferability of content.”
InfluentialAwwad, A., Tavakoli, P., & Wright, C. (2017) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.05.002 · Cited by 42
“…TBLT has provided ample research evidence that suggests manipulating task design, e.g. task structure, influences cognitive processes involved in language production and promotes accuracy and fluency of L2 performance (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Author 2 & collaborator, 2008; Wigglesworth, 2001).”
A comparison of grammatical proficiency measures in the automated assessment of spontaneous speech
Yoon, S., & Bhat, S. (2018) · Speech Communication · doi:10.1016/j.specom.2018.04.003 · Cited by 42
Automatic assessment of syntactic complexity for spontaneous speech scoring
Bhat, S., & Yoon, S. (2014) · Speech Communication · doi:10.1016/j.specom.2014.09.005 · Cited by 42
Martı́nez, A. C. L. (2017) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745 · Cited by 42
Grammatical complexity: ‘What Does It Mean’ and ‘So What’ for L2 writing classrooms?
Lan, G., Liu, Q., & Staples, S. (2019) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100673 · Cited by 42
ICT multimedia learning affordances: role and impact on ESL learners' writing accuracy development
Alobaid, A. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07517 · Cited by 42
L2 Tasks and Orientation to Form
Adams, R. J. (2006) · ITL Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.2143/itl.152.0.2017861 · Cited by 43
Effects of cognitive demands on attention orientation in L2 oral production
Fukuta, J., & Yamashita, J. (2015) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.06.010 · Cited by 42
Chapter 6. Structure, lexis, and time perspective
Wang, Z., & Skehan, P. (2014) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.06wan · Cited by 41
Self-citationBui, G. (2014) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.03gav · Cited by 40
L2 development in an intensive Study Abroad EAP context
Tavakoli, P. (2017) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.10.009 · Cited by 44
“…2009; Skehan 1996, 2015), its potential for allowing researchers to employ a set of “more precise operationalisations of underlying constructs” (Skehan, 2001: 170), and its capacity to represent L2 ability in distinct constructs (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Michel et al.2007; Tavakoli & Foster, 2005).”
Investigating Group Planning in Preparation for Oral Presentations in an EFL Class in Vietnam
Tuan, T. A., & Storch, N. (2007) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/0033688206076162 · Cited by 45
“Researchers (e.g. Crookes 1989; Yuan and Ellis 2003; Foster and Skehan 1996, 1999; Mehnert 1998; Sangarun 2005; Wendel 1997; Wigglesworth 1997) have manipulated various aspects of planning (e.g. planning time, foci, guided/ unguided), and types of tasks in an attempt to investigate the effect of…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialTavares, M. D. G. G. (2013) · Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada · doi:10.1590/s0103-18132013000100002 · Cited by 39
Planning Time, Strategy Use, and Written Task Production in a Pedagogic vs. a Testing Context
Meraji, S. R. (2011) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.2.2.338-352 · Cited by 39
“…most studies which have found favorable gains for lexical complexity as a result of pre-task planning have been oral studies (e.g., Crookes, 1989; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Gilabert, 2004; Kawauchi, 2005; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1995, as cited in Ortega, 2005; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) with one exception…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialChapter 1. The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance
Skehan, P. (2014) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.01ske · Cited by 39
Self-citationChen, W. (2019) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-019-00455-3 · Cited by 41
Development of syntactic complexity in Chinese university students’ L2 argumentative writing
Li, Y., Nikitina, L., & Riget, P. N. (2022) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101099 · Cited by 44
Can planning time compensate for individual differences in working memory capacity?
Nielson, K. B. (2013) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168813510377 · Cited by 41
“…the interaction of WMC with planning time when learners are provided with specific instructions to students before they have time to plan, in order to help balance their focus on accuracy, complexity, and fluency (as in studies by Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008; Sangarun, 2005).”
BackgroundCURRENT APPROACHES TO RESEARCHING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNER PROCESSES
Wigglesworth, G. (2005) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s026719050500005x · Cited by 40
“Over the last decade a number of studies (e.g. Ellis, 2005; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) have examined planning effects on learner output, usually spoken (although Ellis & Yuan, 2004, the most recent study conducted within this…”
BackgroundAhangari, S., & Abdi, M. (2011) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.445 · Cited by 42
The influence of task repetition and task structure on EFL learners' oral narrative retellings
Saeedi, M., & Kazerooni, S. R. (2014) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2013.770860 · Cited by 17
“Investigating narrative task structure as a strand of research was prompted by post-hoc analyses of findings reported by Foster and Skehan (1996) and Skehan and Foster (1997).”
BackgroundMethodQiu, X. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2022.2142245 · Cited by 38
“…prepares learners to ‘perform the task by considering the content they will need to encode and how to express this content’ (Ellis, 2005, p. 3) and has been claimed to enhance L2 oral production in terms of fluency (Bui & Huang, 2018) and complexity (Foster & Skehan, 1996) among other things.”
The Effects of On-line and Pre-task Planning on Descriptive Writing of Iranian EFL Learners
Rahimpour, M., & Safarie, M. (2011) · International Journal of English Linguistics · doi:10.5539/ijel.v1n2p274 · Cited by 37
Ellis, R. (2015) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.8.09ell · Cited by 38
Students’ Dynamic Assessment Via Online Chat
Oskoz, A. (2005) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.1558/cj.v22i3.513-536 · Cited by 37
“As expected from previous research in second language acquisition ( Foster & Skehan, 1996; Pica, 1987; Pica, Young, & Doughty, 1987; Robinson, 1995) and language testing (Chalhoub-Deville, 1995a, 1995b; Henning, 1983; Shohamy, 1983), students performed differently on these four measures depending on the task.”
ResultPlanning, Recasts, and Learning of L2 Morphology
Романова, Н. В. (2010) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.6.843 · Cited by 36
“These predictions have been tested empirically in a large number of studies (Bygate & Samuda, 2005; R. Ellis, 2005; R. Ellis & Yuan, 2005; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Gilabert, 2007; Kawauchi, 2005; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Sangarun, 2005; Skehan & Foster, 2005; Wendel, 1997; Yuan & R. Ellis, 2003).”
The effects of task types on L2 oral production and learner engagement
Qiu, X., & Cheng, H. (2021) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2020-0128 · Cited by 39
Zabihi, R., Mousavi, S. H., & Salehian, A. (2018) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-018-9850-6 · Cited by 44
Chen, J. (2020) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344020000026 · Cited by 40
“In order to examine the effect of pre-task planning on their oral outputs, students were given rehearsal time for task planning (Ellis, 2009a) at home before orally presenting their work in SL.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLópez, Á. R., Souto, J. E., & Noblejas, M. L. A. (2018) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.10.002 · Cited by 44
Chapter 3. The effects of task repetition and task complexity on L2 lexicon use
Kim, Y., Crossley, S., Jung, Y., Kyle, K., & Kang, S. (2018) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.11.03kim · Cited by 7
Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom
Taguchi, N. (2007) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168807080962 · Cited by 40
“Previous literature generally confirms that planning time reduces the cognitive load and in turn enhances the quality of oral production (Crookes, 1989; R. Ellis, 1987; Foster and Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1995; Skehan and Foster, 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997; Yuan and R. Ellis, 2003).”
BackgroundEXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDINGS ON ORAL PERFORMANCE OF EFL LEARNERS
Göktürk, N. (2016) · Teaching English With Technology · Cited by 35
The Role of Tasks as Vehicles for Language Learning in Classroom Interaction
Kim, Y. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118531242.ch10 · Cited by 34
Discovery of ideas in second language writing task environment
Ong, J. (2013) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.05.001 · Cited by 34
Abdi, M., Eslami, H., & Zahedi, Y. (2012) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.199 · Cited by 36
Effects of task type and language proficiency on dialogic performance and task engagement
Ponce, E. E. G., & Tavakoli, P. (2022) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2022.102734 · Cited by 45
Teng, M. F., & Huang, J. (2021) · Asia Pacific Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/02188791.2021.1982675 · Cited by 54
“Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) suggested that the two measures of accuracy tend to correlate closely and Foster and Skehan (1996) identified them to be reliable.”
BackgroundThe linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains
Pérez‐Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004 · Cited by 34
The impact of task structure and planning conditions on oral performance of EFL learners
Mehrang, F., & Rahimpour, M. (2010) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.572 · Cited by 37
Safdari, M., & Fathi, J. (2020) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2020.1818924 · Cited by 33
“In the present study, speaking accuracy was measured as the number of error-free clauses divided by the total number of independent clauses, sub-clausal units and subordinate clauses multiplied by 100 (Foster & Skehan, 1996 as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005).”
MethodTHE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBORDINATE CLAUSES IN GERMAN AND SWEDISH AS L2S
Baten, K., & Håkansson, G. (2014) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263114000552 · Cited by 33
“The fl uctuating pattern most likely results from, among other things, 6 an effect of the tasks used during data collection (e.g., Robinson, 2011 ; Skehan & Foster, 2009 ).”
BackgroundMethodChen, S., & Wang, J. (2019) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n3p119 · Cited by 36
“Foster and Skehan (1996) found that when students were given detailed guidance they tend to prioritize content with resulting gains in complexity when they performed the task.”
BackgroundChaudron, C. (2000) · Cited by 31
The effect of online planning, strategic planning and rehearsal across two proficiency levels
Baleghizadeh, S., & Shahri, M. N. N. (2013) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2013.808258 · Cited by 38
“The lighter burden of conceptualisation can be predicted to enhance complexity and fluency, a prediction borne out by Foster and Skehan (1996) and Wendel (1997).”
BackgroundPhonological and executive working memory in L2 task-based speech planning and performance
Wen, Z. (2016) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2016.1227220 · Cited by 34
Fazilatfar, A. M., Kasiri, F., & Nowbakht, M. (2020) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.30466/ijltr.2020.120809 · Cited by 31
“Exclusively, planning time investigations mainly focused on the effect of allocating time to planning on writing performances (Ellis, 1987; Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
BackgroundZuniga, M., & Simard, D. (2022) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2022.102732 · Cited by 44
The Measurement of the Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency of Written Arabic.
Raish, M. (2017) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 32
EFFECTS OF TASK TYPE AND L2 PROFICIENCY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN L1 AND L2 IN READING AND WRITING
Pae, T. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000462 · Cited by 32
“Empirical studies by Skehan and colleagues (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Skehan, Foster, & Mehnert, 1997) have reported the presence of differential task-type effect on measures of L2 production, indicating that the higher the complexity, the lower the complexity and accuracy of…”
BackgroundEffects of task type on morphosyntactic complexity across proficiency
Michel, M. C., Murakami, A., Alexopoulou, T., & Meurers, D. (2019) · Instructed Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1558/isla.38248 · Cited by 31
“The categorisation was theoretically informed by earlier research into task genre and task type (e.g. Byrnes, Maxim and Norris 2010; Foster and Skehan 1996; Yoon and Polio 2017) and extended by emerging categories.”
MethodTask‐based language learning research: expecting too much or too little?
Foster, P. (2009) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00242.x · Cited by 31
Self-citationAhmadi, A., & Sadeghi, E. (2016) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15434303.2016.1236797 · Cited by 31
“The following measures were considered: Accuracy measures: ratio of error-free clauses (Foster & Skehan, 1996), and number of errors per 100 words (Mehnert, 1998).”
MethodEffects of task repetition on L2 oral performance
Finardi, K. R. (2008) · Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada · doi:10.1590/s0103-18132008000100003 · Cited by 30
“Taken together, his findings seem to corroborate evidence of trade-off e fects (BYGATE, 1998, 1999, 2001b; FOSTER AND SKEHAN, 1996; SKEHAN AND FOSTER, 1995, 2001; SKEHAN, 1998), especially in terms of complexity at the expense of accuracy and fluency.”
ResultThe effects of backchannels on fluency in L2 oral task production
Wolf, J. P. (2008) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.11.007 · Cited by 30
The Cognition Hypothesis, the Triadic Componential Framework and the SSARC Model
Robinson, P. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327.013 · Cited by 35
From Needs Analysis to Task Selection, Design, and Sequencing
Gilabert, R., & Malicka, A. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327.014 · Cited by 30
L2 performance in text-chat and spoken discourse
Sauro, S. J. (2012) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2012.08.001 · Cited by 29
Chapter 7. Structure and processing condition in video-based narrative retelling
Skehan, P., & Shum, S. (2014) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.07ske · Cited by 28
Self-citationEffects of task type, task-type repetition, and performance criteria on L2 oral production
Xing-chao, H. (2018) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.11.06hu · Cited by 28
The effects of hybrid online planning and L2 proficiency on video-based speaking task performance
Wang, Z., Skehan, P., & Chen, G. (2019) · Instructed Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1558/isla.37398 · Cited by 28
Self-citationStudy of accuracy and grammatical complexity in EFL writing
Martı́nez, A. C. L. (2018) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes/2018/1/258971 · Cited by 28
Zhang, X. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su142214686 · Cited by 35
Sandlund, E., & Sundqvist, P. (2011) · Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) · Cited by 28
Features of oral proficiency in task performance by EFL and JFL learners
Iwashita, N. (2010) · Cited by 28
Oral Second Language Abilities as Expertise
Bygate, M. (2005) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230523470_6 · Cited by 29
The impact of task structure on the use of vague expressions by EFL learners
Parvaresh, V., & Ahmadian, M. J. (2016) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2016.1204108 · Cited by 27
“The construct of task structure was first proposed and discussed in a series of studies by Skehan and Foster (Foster and Skehan 1996; Skehan and Foster 1999).”
MethodInfluentialSpeaking proficiency of young language students: A discourse-analytic study
Hsieh, C., & Wang, Y. (2017) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532217734240 · Cited by 36
Daniel, R. B., & Christopher, J. (2018) · The Journal of AsiaTEFL · doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.8.383 · Cited by 31
“Foster and Skehan (1996) define syntactic complexity in second language writing as a measure of the variety and sophistication of the units or grammatical structures produced.”
BackgroundThe Effect of Focus on Form and Task Complexity on L2 Learners’ Oral Task Performance
Salimi, A. (2015) · Advances in Language and Literary Studies · doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.6p.54 · Cited by 27
Hyun, J.-E., & Lee, J.-H. (2018) · English Teaching · doi:10.15858/engtea.73.1.201803.115 · Cited by 26
“One of the most frequently investigated task complexity factors is [+/- planning time], a resource-dispersing factor (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Lee, Oh, & Shin, 2007; Ortega, 1999; Wang & Lee, 2014; Yuan & Ellis, 2003).”
BackgroundZhang, W., & Zhang, L. J. (2022) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2022.102951 · Cited by 31
Developing and assessing second language listening and speaking: Does AI make it better?
Goh, C. C. M., & Aryadoust, V. (2025) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190525100111 · Cited by 49
Smith, B., & Sauro, S. (2009) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588220902920219 · Cited by 26
Rodríguez-González, E., & Castañeda, M. E. (2016) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2015.1108978 · Cited by 32
“Research studies in language testing and L2 acquisition have used measures of grammatical accuracy of learner speech in terms of global accuracy (Foster and Skehan 1996; Skehan and Foster 1999).”
BackgroundWilliams, S. A., & Korko, M. (2019) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716418000802 · Cited by 30
Learner Perception of Learning Tasks
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006) · ITL Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.2143/itl.152.0.2017866 · Cited by 28
“Research shows (see, for instance, Foster & Skehan, 1996) that decision-making tasks promote meaningful interaction where the learners’ attention is focused on message construction.”
The Effects of Online Planning on CAF in L2 Spoken and Written Performance
Kim, N. (2018) · English Teaching · doi:10.15858/engtea.73.3.201809.3 · Cited by 26
“…tasks The effects of pre-task planning on CAF have been examined widely both in L2 spoken tasks (e.g., Crookes, 1989; Elder & Iwashita, 2005; Foster & Skehan, 1996, 1999; Gilabert, 2007; Kawauchi, 2005; Sangarun, 2005; Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005; Wang, 2009; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) and L2 written…”
BackgroundFluency, Accuracy, and Complexity in Graded and Ungraded Writing
Armstrong, K. M. (2010) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01109.x · Cited by 25
Learner Creativity and Performance in Written Narrative Tasks
Pishghadam, R., & Mehr, F. J. (2011) · World Journal of Education · doi:10.5430/wje.v1n2p115 · Cited by 25
Gan, Z. (2012) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15434303.2010.516041 · Cited by 25
“Based on his empirical work (e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997), Skehan (2001) observed that interactive tasks advantage accuracy and complexity.”
BackgroundSyntactic complexity at multiple proficiency levels of L2 German speech
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2016) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12128 · Cited by 31
Dembovskaya, S. B. (2009) · doi:10.17077/etd.scwb9fdh · Cited by 25
“…effect of planning and pre-task conditions on the nature of language production during the task: 1) Allowing students to plan does seem to lead to more fluent speech during task completion (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997; Wendel, 1997; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThe Effect of Task Repetition on Fluency And Accuracy of EFL Saudi Female Learners' Oral Performance
Gashan, A., & Almohaisen, F. M. (2014) · Advances in Language and Literary Studies · doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.3p.36 · Cited by 10
“Following Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1999; Elder & Iwashita, 2005, fluency was measured by counting “the number of repetitions (of the same word or phrase), false starts (utterances abandoned before completion), reformulations (phrases or clauses repeated with some modification to…”
BackgroundGorp, K. V., & den Branden, K. V. (2023) · TASK Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1075/task.00018.gor · Cited by 24
Automated assessment of learner text complexity
Lyashevskaya, O., Panteleeva, I., & Vinogradova, O. (2021) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2021.100529 · Cited by 25
Task-Based Language Teaching as an Innovation
den Branden, K. V. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327.035 · Cited by 24
小泉, 利. (2006) · Terrestrial Environment Research Center (University of Tsukuba) · Cited by 23
Haghverdi, H. R., Biria, R., & Khalaji, H. R. (2013) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.4.1.74-83 · Cited by 24
“These results are in line with earlier investigations of the effects of planning either on oral performance or on written performance (de Bot, 1996; Franken & Haslett, 2002; Shi, 1998; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Wendel, 1997).”
ResultWhy Task? Task as a Unit of Analysis for Language Education
Sasayama, S. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327.004 · Cited by 24
Xu, J., & Qiu, X. (2021) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882211061628 · Cited by 28
“The types of tasks used in the language classroom also affect L2 oral production (e.g. Foster and Skehan, 1996; Geng and Ferguson, 2013).”
BackgroundTask Type Effects on Pragmatic Marker Use by Learners at Varying Proficiency Levels
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013) · L2 Journal · doi:10.5070/l25212104 · Cited by 26
“Foster and Skehan (1996, 1999), Skehan and Foster (1997, 1999) and Skehen (1998, 2003) have foregrounded the role of attention and the effects that the allocation of attentional resources have on second language production.”
BackgroundPlanning to speak in L1 and L2.
Konopka, A., Meyer, A., & Forest, T. (2018) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.12.003 · Cited by 25
Qian, L., Yang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2020) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-020-10087-5 · Cited by 23
Elashri, I. I. E. A. F. (2013) · Cited by 23
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
