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 301–400 of 1,141
Task and Performance-Based Assessment
Wigglesworth, G., & Frost, K. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_8 · Cited by 30
Fluidité et complexité dans la construction du discours entre apprenants de langues étrangères
Nussbaum, L., & Unamuno, V. (2000) · Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère · doi:10.4000/aile.1448 · Cited by 23
A Model of Formative Task-Based Language Assessment for Chinese as a Foreign Language
Ke, C. (2006) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0302_6 · Cited by 25
“2A number of studies (Foster & Skehan, 1996, 1999; Skehan & Foster, 1997, 1999) show that planning time can affect a learner’s performance on complexity and fluency.”
BackgroundImproving language production using subtitled similar task videos
Arslanyilmaz, A., & Pedersen, S. (2010) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168810375363 · Cited by 24
“When students had time to plan for task completion, the fluency of their language improved (Crookes, 1989; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Wendel 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan & Foster, 1999; Foster, 2001), the complexity of their language increased in terms of lexical…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBarrot, J. S. (2017) · Reading & Writing Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10573569.2017.1387631 · Cited by 26
“More specifically, I measured complexity by calculating the proportion of clauses to T-units (C/T; Ellis, 2009; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Iwashita et al., 2008; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009; Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998).”
MethodThe Effects of Pre-task Planning on the Writing Fluency of Iranian EFL Learners
Biria, R., & Karimi, Z. (2015) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.17507/jltr.0602.16 · Cited by 22
“Studies by Crookes (1989), Foster and Skehan (1996), as well as Wendel (1997), among others, report that pre-task planning affects fluency positively.”
BackgroundHeidari‐Shahreza, M. A. (2012) · Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras · doi:10.30827/digibug.31975 · Cited by 22
“These researchers argue that content will be traded off for accuracy and complexity, and vice versa (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; VanPatten, 1990).”
BackgroundFahmy, M. M. (2013) · USF Scholarship Repository (University of San Francisco) · Cited by 22
DEVELOPING ANALYTIC RATING GUIDES FOR TOEFL IBT'S INTEGRATED SPEAKING TASKS
Jamieson, J., & Poonpon, K. (2013) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02320.x · Cited by 22
“Measures of grammatical accuracy of learner speech have been operationalized globally (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1999) and specifically (Iwashita et al., 2008; Ortega, 1999; Wigglesworth, 1997).”
BackgroundEllis, R. (2019) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.13.02ell · Cited by 22
Planning in L1 and L2 writing: Working memory, process, and product
Johnson, M. D. (2020) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444820000191 · Cited by 22
“…typically focusing on the predictions of two competing theories of task-based language teaching/learning: (a) the limited attentional capacity model (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 2001) or (b) the cognition hypothesis (Robinson, 2001, 2003, 2005), each of which is described briefly below.”
BackgroundShafaei, A., Salimi, A., & Talebi, Z. (2013) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.4.4.746-753 · Cited by 22
“The findings of the study are in line with the findings of Foster and Skehan (1996), Rahimpour and Yaghoubi-Notash (2008).”
ResultShajeri, E., & Izadpanah, S. (2016) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.0605.04 · Cited by 21
“…elements in Robinson’s (2005, 2007) framework have been investigated to a great extent, such as +/- planning dimension (such as Ellis & Yuan, 2004; Foster & Skehan, 1996, 1999; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Wigglesworth, 2001; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) and +/- Here-and-Now dimension (Berwick, 1993; Ishikawa,…”
BackgroundThe role of L2 learner goal differences in task-generated oral production
Maad, M. R. B. (2016) · Australian Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/aral.39.1.03ben · Cited by 21
Motlhaka, H. A. (2020) · The Electronic Journal of e-Learning · doi:10.34190/ejel.20.18.4.006 · Cited by 22
“In this study, complexity is defined as progressively more elaborate language and a greater variety of syntactic patterning (Foster and Skehan, 1996) and accuracy is defined as the ability to be free from errors while using language to communicate, while fluency is defined as the number of words or…”
BackgroundEffects of the 4/3/2 activity revisited: Extending Boers (2014) and Thai & Boers (2016)
Tran, M. T. C., & Saito, K. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168821994136 · Cited by 26
“Clause was operationalized ‘either a simple independent finite clause, or a dependent finite or non-finite clause’ (Foster & Skehan, 1996, p. 310).”
BackgroundPeer-mediated vs. individual writing: measuring fluency, complexity, and accuracy in writing
Soleimani, M., Modirkhamene, S., & Sadeghi, K. (2017) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2015.1043915 · Cited by 22
“Moreover, complexity was measured through proportion of clauses to T-units, which as Foster and Skehan (1996) based on their previous research conclude, is a reliable measure and correlates well with other measures of complexity.”
MethodCreativity and Narrative Writing in L2 Classrooms: Comparing Individual and Paired Task Performance
Zabihi, R., Rezazadeh, M., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2013) · Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature · doi:10.5565/rev/jtl3.481 · Cited by 24
“The CAF of learners’ performance was operationalized in the following manner: Complexity was measured through calculating the proportion of clauses to T-units, which according to Foster and Skehan (1996) is a reliable measure of subordination correlating well with other complexity measures.”
BackgroundMethodAn exploratory study into the dynamics of Chinese L2 writing development
Hou, J., Verspoor, M., & Loerts, H. (2016) · Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/dujal.5.1.04loe · Cited by 18
Oya, T., Manalo, E., & Greenwood, J. (2009) · The Open Applied Linguistics Journal · doi:10.2174/1874913500902010011 · Cited by 21
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING: A Study of Practices and Effectiveness in the Bahrain Context
Mohamed, M. (2013) · White Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · Cited by 21
The Role of Task Complexity and Task Sequencing in L2 Monologic Oral Production
Malicka, A. (2014) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · Cited by 21
Panahzadeh, V., & Asadi, B. (2019) · Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.32601/ejal.651267 · Cited by 21
Engagement in collaborative writing: Exploring learners’ control of task content and text quality
Phan, H. L. T., & Dao, P. (2023) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12462 · Cited by 28
Bygate, M., Samuda, V., & den Branden, K. V. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327.003 · Cited by 27
Qiu, X., & Bui, G. (2022) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688221135280 · Cited by 23
“While pre-task planning is found to facilitate L2 fluency (Bui & Huang, 2018) and complexity (Foster & Skehan, 1996), our findings suggest that, concerning learner engagement, the positive impact of pre-task planning was not so significant.”
InfluentialYang, W. (2014) · Digital Archive @ GSU · doi:10.57709/5687326 · Cited by 20
Oral Skill Development in Second Languages: A Review in Search of Best Practices
Garbati, J., & Mady, C. J. (2015) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.0509.01 · Cited by 20
“In a pre-task planning, students are given a limited amount of time (e.g., 10 minutes) prior to completing a task (e.g., a decision-making task, a narrative task) (see Foster & Skehan, 1996; Kobayashi, 2003).”
MethodAkindele, D., & Trennepohl, B. (2008) · Language Culture and Curriculum · doi:10.1080/07908310802287533 · Cited by 20
“This initial planning for the task aims at producing improvements in fluency, accuracy and complexity of student performance (Bygate et al., 2001; Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
BackgroundTavakoli, M., & Rezazadeh, M. (2014) · Journal of teaching language skills · doi:10.22099/jtls.2014.1857 · Cited by 20
“Therefore, paying attention to one area of language (e.g. accuracy) may reduce attention to other dimensions of performance (e.g. complexity) (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan, 2009; Skehan & Foster, 1999).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSeifoori, Z., & vahidi, Z. (2012) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2011.639894 · Cited by 22
“…& Yuan, 2005; Yuan & Ellis, 2003), the amount of time allocated for planning (Mehnert, 1998), the source of planning and task types (Foster, 1996; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999; Skehan & Foster, 1997), the planning time and focal attention (Hulstijn & Hulstijn, 1984), mixed planning…”
BackgroundRezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M., & Rasekh, A. E. (2011) · International Education Studies · doi:10.5539/ies.v4n2p169 · Cited by 22
“This finding is consistent with the results of previous studies conducted by Foster and Skehan (1996, 1997). However, it does not support the results of the study concluded by Mehnert (1998). Mehnert found that both tasks lead to language of similar fluency levels.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialChapter 5. L2 fluency development in formal instruction and study abroad
Valls‐Ferrer, M., & Mora, J. C. (2014) · AILA applied linguistics series · doi:10.1075/aals.13.07ch5 · Cited by 21
An empirical study of using internet-based desktop videoconferencing in an efl setting
Franklin, T. J., & Xiao, M. (2007) · EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology · Cited by 19
Bui, G., & Teng, M. F. (2018) · Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1515/cjal-2018-0008 · Cited by 19
Structural alignment in L2 task-based interaction
Dao, P., Trofimovich, P., & Kennedy, S. (2018) · ITL Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/itl.17021.dao · Cited by 20
Zabihi, R., & Bayan, M. (2020) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088320939542 · Cited by 19
“For example, with respect to accuracy, our results revealed that collaboratively produced writings had more error-free T-units compared with independently produced texts, suggesting that paired writings were more accurate.”
BackgroundInfluentialEffects of Immediate Repetition in L2 Speaking Tasks: A Focused Study
Bui, G. (2012) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v6n1p11 · Cited by 19
“An error-free clause is a clause without syntactic, morphological, or word order errors (Foster & Skehan, 1996); Fluency: the total syllables per minute after deletion of reformulations, replacements, false starts, repetitions and hesitations (Ortega, 1999); Complexity: the ratio of clauses to AS…”
BackgroundInfluentialFrench, L. M., & Beaulieu, S. (2016) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2015.1122024 · Cited by 19
“Overall, the finding of a task effect in the present study is entirely congruent with previous research showing that task type influences L2 learners’ oral production skill, particularly with respect to accuracy, complexity, and fluency (Anderson, 1995; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997).”
BackgroundResultHarji, M. B., & Gheitanchian, M. (2017) · The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology · Cited by 19
Uptake in Task-elicited L2 Performance: Can Task Complexity Matter?
Yaghoubi−Notash, M., & Yousefi, M. H. (2011) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.2.3.508-516 · Cited by 18
Bagheri, M., & Hamrang, A. (2013) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature · doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.2p.25 · Cited by 18
“Researchers have found that giving planning time to learners can improve their L2 development (Foster & Skehan, 1996, Wendel, 1997).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialWorking memory and speech performance in a picture description task with repetition
Finardi, K. R. (2011) · Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos · doi:10.20396/cel.v50i2.8637227 · Cited by 18
Strategic planning and repetition as metacognitive processes in task performance
D’Ely, R., Mota, M. B., & Bygate, M. (2019) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.13.10del · Cited by 19
Establishing the fluency gap between native and non-native-speech
Guz, E. (2015) · Research in Language · doi:10.1515/rela-2015-0021 · Cited by 21
“The author himself and his colleagues applied it in their ‘Ealing project’ series of studies investigating the effect of task-design on taskperformance (Foster, 2001; Foster & Skehan, 1996, 1999, 2013; Skehan & Foster 1997, 1999, 2005, 2012).”
BackgroundResearch trends in task-based language teaching: A bibliometric analysis from 1985 to 2020
Qin, J., & Lei, L. (2022) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.3.3 · Cited by 19
Quality and quantity of oral participation and English proficiency gains
Delaney, T. (2012) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168812455586 · Cited by 18
“Thus, the definition of error-free was essentially the same as the one used by Foster and Skehan (1996): ‘A clause in which there is no”
MethodBeyond advanced stages in high-level spoken L2 French
Lundell, F. F., Bartning, I., Engel, H., Gudmundson, A., Hancock, V., & Lindqvist, C. (2013) · Journal of French Language Studies · doi:10.1017/s0959269513000057 · Cited by 20
“This measure has been found to distinguish between native and non-native speech by e.g. Van Daele, Housen and Pierrard (2008) and also between planned and unplanned speech (Foster and Skehan 1996).”
BackgroundThe Use of Hedges in the Speech of ESL Learners
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013) · Elia · Cited by 18
Working memory capacity and narrative task performance
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011) · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · Cited by 20
Maximizing L2 Speaking Practice through iPads
Schenker, T., & Kraemer, A. (2017) · Languages · doi:10.3390/languages2020006 · Cited by 18
“Foster and Skehan’s classifications of reformulations, false starts, and hesitations were used [51].”
MethodRouhi, A., Dibah, M., & Mohebbi, H. (2020) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-020-00093-z · Cited by 18
Working memory capacity and speech production in L2: evidences from a picture description task
Finardi, K. R., & Prebianca, G. V. V. (2006) · Revista de Estudos da Linguagem · doi:10.17851/2237-2083.14.1.231-260 · Cited by 18
“In sum, these results corroborate several studies in the literature (FORTKAMP, 2000; SKEHAN, 1998; FOSTER and SKEHAN, 1996) in the sense that there are indeed trade-offs among L2 speech production variables.”
ResultTavakoli, M., Dastjerdi, H. V., & Esteki, M. (2011) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.2.5.989-997 · Cited by 19
“This measure was used in Foster and Skehan (1996), Foster and Skehan (1999), Yuan and Ellis (2003), Wigglesworth and Elder (2010).”
MethodResultCelaya, M. L., & Cherta, M. R. T. (2001) · Digitum: Institutional Repository of the University of Murcia (University of Murcia) · doi:10.6018/ijes.1.2.48211 · Cited by 18
Xing, J.-X., & Luo, S.-Q. (2019) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.13.08xin
Aubrey, S., Lambert, C., & Leeming, P. (2020) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168820917844 · Cited by 16
“…task performance I Introduction Research into pre-task planning has addressed a variety of issues, such as planning for structured and unstructured tasks (Saeedi, 2015), amount of planning time (e.g. Li, Chen, & Sun, 2015; Mehnert, 1998), and guided and unguided planning (Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
BackgroundMizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Cited by 17
Motivational dispositions predict qualitative differences in oral task performance
Papi, M., Eom, M., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., & Whiteside, Z. C. (2023) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263123000220 · Cited by 11
Because words matter: Investigating vocabulary development across contexts and modalities
Zaytseva, V., Miralpeix, I., & Pérez‐Vidal, C. (2019) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168819852976 · Cited by 24
“Talking in an L2 about familiar information (i.e. one’s personal experience) typically entails a more fluent and accurate production and prevents speakers from running out of ideas (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997).”
BackgroundThe role of task repetition and learner self-assessment in technology-mediated task performance
Kartchava, E., & Nassaji, H. (2019) · ITL Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/itl.19013.kar · Cited by 17
The Effect of Collaborative Writing on Iranian EFL Learners’ L2 Writing Anxiety and Attitudes
Jalili, M. H., & Shahrokhi, M. (2017) · Journal of applied linguistics and language research · Cited by 17
Writing in Foreign Language Contexts
Manchón, R. M. (2009) · Multilingual Matters eBooks · doi:10.2307/jj.27195487 · Cited by 116
Interlanguage variation and transfer of learning
James, M. A. (2007) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral.2007.004 · Cited by 17
Evaluating Measures of Pausing for Second Language Fluency Research
Shea, C., & Leonard, K. R. (2019) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.2018-0258 · Cited by 18
Qin, J. (2021) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102695 · Cited by 16
Chapter 4. Oral accuracy growth after formal instruction and study abroad
Juan-Garau, M. (2014) · AILA applied linguistics series · doi:10.1075/aals.13.06ch4 · Cited by 15
Pérez, M. D. M. S. (2023) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.38279 · Cited by 15
“The topics were sufficiently general but related to the participants’ area of knowledge to facilitate and inspire students’ writing (Foster & Skehan, 1996).”
Second language speech comprehensibility: A research agenda
Crowther, D., & Isbell, D. R. (2023) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s026144482300037x · Cited by 22
“Communicatively-oriented practices for pronunciation instruction have been well documented, including Gurzynski-Weiss et al.’s (2017) special issue on task-based language teaching and pronunciation instruction (see also Mora & Levkina’s, 2017, special issue epilogue).”
BackgroundLearners’ processes during pre-task planning and Working Memory Capacity
Tavares, M. D. G. G. (2016) · Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language Literatures in English and Cultural Studies · doi:10.5007/2175-8026.2016v69n1p79 · Cited by 15
“Researchers have investigated planning from a variety of perspectives, including the diferent types of planning (Foster & Skehan, 1996); diferent amounts of planning time (Mehnert, 1998); planning and diferent task types (Foster & Skehan, 1996), planning and levels of proiciency (Kawauchi, 2005),…”
BackgroundResultKorean L2 speakers’ regulatory focus and oral task performance
Han, Y., & McDonough, K. (2017) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2015-0116 · Cited by 18
“…L2 performance have been investigated through the lenses of task characteristics and task implementation factors, such as pre-task planning (e. g., Foster and Skehan 1996; Mehnert 1998; Ortega 1999; Sangarun 2001; Peter and Foster 1997; Wigglesworth 1997; Yuan and Ellis 2003) and task repetition…”
MethodKhoram, A., & Zhang, Z. (2019) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2019.1675466 · Cited by 19
“The choice of planning time was in accordance with Crookes (1989), Foster and Skehan (1996) and (Wendel, 1997) in order to reach more comparable results with those of previous planning studies.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialVoices and Practices in Applied Linguistics: Diversifying a Discipline
Wright, C., Harvey, L., & Simpson, J. (2019) · White Rose University Press eBooks · doi:10.22599/baal1 · Cited by 21
Silva, B. B., Kutyłowska, K., & Otwinowska, A. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688211020421 · Cited by 12
“Different topics were chosen since rewriting on the same topic may have a facilitating effect (Shaw & Liu, 1998) and allows learners to allocate more attentional resources to complexity and accuracy (see Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan, 2014).”
BackgroundMoradi, Z., & Talebi, S. H. (2014) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.537 · Cited by 20
“In previous studies, researchers such as Foster and Skehan (1996), and Skehan and Foster (1997) reported that planners had greater fluency than non-planners.”
BackgroundHuang, S.-C. (2008) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral.2008.016 · Cited by 19
The Effects of Planning on Writing Narrative Task Performance with Low and High EFL Proficiency
Rahimpour, M., & Nariman-Jahan, R. (2011) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v4n1p120 · Cited by 16
“Therefore, a number of studies have investigated the effects of planning on L2 learner’s performance of oral narratives (Foster and Skehan, 1996; Skehan and Foster, 1997, 1999; Ortega, 1999; Yuan and Ellis, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialBiancarosa, G., & Shanley, L. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2803-3_1 · Cited by 18
Qin, J. (2019) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.01.010 · Cited by 16
How Wild Can It Get? Managing Language Learning Tasks in Real Life Service Encounters
Piirainen–Marsh, A., & Lilja, N. (2019) · Educational linguistics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22165-2_7 · Cited by 16
Interaction, Feedback and Task Research in Second Language Learning : Methods and Design
Mackey, A. (2020) · Cited by 15
Topic Familiarity Effect on Accuracy, Complexity, and Fluency of L2 Oral Output
Rahimpour, M. (2007) · The Journal of AsiaTEFL · Cited by 15
English-medium instruction : Seeking assessment criteria for spoken professional English
Pilkinton-Pihko, D. (2013) · Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja · Cited by 15
Beaudrie, S. M. (2006) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) · Cited by 15
Dong, S., Wang, H., & Dong, J. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103900 · Cited by 19
Harris, J., & Leeming, P. (2022) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2022-0082 · Cited by 21
Handley, Z. L., & Wang, H. (2023) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15434303.2023.2283839 · Cited by 19
“…speed and breakdown fluency using De Jong and Wempe’s (2009) PRAAT script before hand-coding for pause location and repairs (see Table 2 for the full range of measures that were calculated and Foster & Skehan, 1996 for definitions of repairs including false starts, repetitions, and hesitations).”
MethodThe Impact of Oral Presentation on Fluency and Accuracy of Iranian EFL Learners’ Speaking
Yahay, M., & Kheirzadeh, S. (2015) · Journal of applied linguistics and language research · Cited by 14
Collaborative Pre-Task Planning Processes and Second Language Task Performance
Leeming, P., Aubrey, S., & Lambert, C. (2020) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/0033688220953225 · Cited by 15
Bora, S. F. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688211043490 · Cited by 13
“The percentage of error-free clauses has often been used in research as a global measure (Foster & Skehan, 1996), however, this measure leads to possible bias as it ignores cases where there is more than one error in a clause.”
Task-Based Teaching and Learning: Pedagogical Implications
East, M. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02323-6_8-1 · Cited by 16
Xie, Y., & Zhu, D. (2023) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103008 · Cited by 15
Collaborative Writing versus Individual Writing: Fluency, Accuracy, Complexity, and Essay Score
Pae, J.-K. (2011) · Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.15702/mall.2011.14.1.121 · Cited by 13
Camps, J. (2003) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb01473.x · Cited by 13
Nguyen, G. V. (2013) · Research Commons (University of Waikato) · Cited by 12
Communicative task engagement in second language learning and teaching: a scoping review
Qiu, X. (2025) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2025.2502733 · Cited by 14
O’Sullivan, B. (2008) · Cited by 12
The distributed practice effects of speaking task repetition
Kobayashi, M. (2021) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12409 · Cited by 13
Aubrey, S., & Philpott, A. (2022) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688221077421 · Cited by 10
Huensch, A. (2023) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263123000323 · Cited by 16
“…status on midclause pausing and its potential relationship to stages in L2 speech production, it is necessary to expand the speaking tasks under investigation especially given a substantial body of literature (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Michel, 2011) that has demonstrated task effects on L2 fluency.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Foster, P., & Skehan, P.
- Affiliations
- University of West London (GB)
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 299-323
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W2001528051
- Cited by
- 1,147
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 99 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 80 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 50
- FWCI
- 28.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- task-based language teaching, task planning, second language performance, fluency, complexity, accuracy, task type, narrative task, decision-making tasks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
