The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production
Abstract
This article reports on a study that was primarily aimed at investigating the effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in the oral production of learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). The effects of four planning and task repetition conditions (i.e. careful online planning without task repetition, pressured online planning with task repetition, careful online planning with task repetition, and pressured online planning without task repetition) on learners’ accuracy, complexity, and fluency in producing English language were investigated. Iranian intermediate-level EFL learners ( n = 60) were randomly selected and assigned to the four task conditions. The results obtained from one-way ANOVAs revealed that the opportunity to engage simultaneously in careful online planning and task repetition enhances accuracy, complexity, and fluency significantly. The obtained results also have some implications for teachers and practitioners in EFL context.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Rehearsal or task repetition has been shown to have the most robust effects on L2 fluency among planning types.
“Of the different forms of planning proposed by Ellis (2005), rehearsal (or task repetition) has been shown to have the most robust effects on L2 fluency”
From TASK REPETITION AND SECOND LANGUAGE SPEECH PROCESSING (2017) · cites this paper as Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011
The speech rate results are in line with previous research that found significant gains in speech rate when tasks were repeated once or several times.
“They are in line with previous research that has found significant gains in speech rate when tasks were repeated once (Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011;Arevart & Nation, 1991, 1993;Bygate, 2001;Lynch & Maclean, 2000;Wang, 2014) and several times (Ahmadian, 2011).”
From TASK REPETITION AND SECOND LANGUAGE SPEECH PROCESSING (2017) · cites this paper as Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011
In task-based language teaching and learning, repeating a speaking task facilitates fluency development.
“In task-based language teaching and learning, the facilitative role of repeating a speaking task was found for fluency development.”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011
Task repetition leads to changes in utterance fluency, reflected as speed, breakdown, and repair fluency.
“task repetition leads to changes in utterance fluency, reflected as speed (e.g., articulation rate), breakdown (e.g., pauses), and repair fluency (e.g., repetitions).”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011
Across previous empirical studies, intervals between same-task repetitions vary considerably, such as massed, across a few days, weeks, or months.
“Across previous empirical studies, the intervals between same-task repetitions vary considerably, such as massed (immediate) repetition (e.g., Lambert et al., 2017;Lynch & Maclean, 2000), across a few days (e.g., Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011;Gass et al., 1999;Kim & Tracy-Ventura, 2013), weeks (e.g., Fukuta, 2016), or months (e.g., Bygate, 2001).”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011
Task repetition enhances L2 fluency development.
“Task repetition enhances L2 fluency development (e.g., Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011;Bygate, 1996Bygate, , 2001;;de Jong & Perfetti, 2011;Lambert et al., 2017;Lynch & Maclean, 2000;Thai & Boers, 2016).”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011
Task repetition has been shown to positively change learners' task performance in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency.
“Task repetition has been shown to positively change learners' task performance in terms of complexity, accuracy and fluency (Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011;Bygate, 1996Bygate, , 2001;;Gass, Mackey, Alvarez-Torres, & Fernandez-Garcia, 1999;Lynch & McLean, 2001).”
From Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT (2016) · cites this paper as Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 32 · Cited by 334
- Authors
- Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Isfahan (IR)
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-12-23
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-59
- ISSN
- 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0954
- OpenAlex
- W2118436852
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 78.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Teaching Research (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Keywords
- online planning, task repetition, oral expression, EFL learners, speaking accuracy, speech complexity, fluency, second language speaking, planning strategies
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.
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