Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 36783686

WCES-2010

The impact of task structure and planning conditions on oral

performance of EFL learners
Faezeh Mehranga *, Massoud Rahimpoura
a

English department, Faculty of Persian literature and foreign languages, University of Tabriz, 29 Bahman Blvd., Tabriz, 5166614766, Iran
Received October 29, 2009; revised December 7, 2009; accepted January 15, 2010

Abstract
The present study aims at investigating the impact of planning conditions on the oral performance of the EFL learners while
performing structured vs. unstructured tasks. Sixty four intermediate learners of English were randomly selected and divided into
two groups of with pre-task planning time and without pre-task planning time. Cartoon scripts were employed for data collection.
Results indicated that planning time had no effect on the accuracy and fluency of the learners' performances, but led to more
complex performances when participants performed the unstructured task. Meanwhile, task structure did not affect the accuracy
and complexity while promoting the fluency under the planned condition.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: Task-based language teaching; planning conditions; task structure; fluency; accuracy; complexity.

1. Introduction
If one aims at designing a syllabus, there exist two main types to choose from: synthetic and analytic syllabuses
(Wilkins, 1974, 1976).
Among the analytic syllabuses, the ones which has been the centre of attention of the many scholars since 1970s
are task-based syllabuses. Task-based approaches to second language teaching focus on the ability of a learner to
perform target-like tasks without any explicit teaching of grammatical rules (Rahimpour, 2008) and include
procedural syllabuses, process syllabuses and task-based language teaching (TBLT) (Long and Crookes, 1992).
The third approach, which is task-based language teaching, owes its development to the dissatisfaction with the
former language teaching methods namely, audiolingualism, grammar translation and etc. According to Rahimpour
(2007, 2008) task-based language teaching is a response to a better understanding of a language learning process.
This approach takes task as its unit of analysis and emphasizes on the creation of meaning without any prior
prescription of forms. Thus, learners are free to use any strategies or forms to perform the task and achieve the task
goal (Willis and Willis, 2001).

* Faezeh Mehrang. Tel.: 0098-411-5559261

E-mail address: f_mehrang@yahoo.com, rahimpour@tabrizu.ac.ir

1877-0428 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.572

Faezeh Mehrang and Massoud Rahimpour / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 36783686

3679

Since 1970s a large number of studies have turned to examine and analyze the impact of task design and
implementation variables on the accuracy, fluency and complexity of language (Foster and Skehan, 1999; Gilabert,
2005; Ortega, 1999; Rahimpour, 2007, 2008; Robinson, 1995, 2001, 2005; Skehan and Foster, 1999), to name but a
few.
According to Tavakoli and Foster (2008), there are three reasons why task-based research has been the hottest
trend in the field of empirical research for more than 20 years. First of all, research sheds light on the proposition
that task performance in itself drives interlanguage change by causing learners to attend to and retain information
about the target language as they use it. Second, since research identifies various features of tasks that influences
learner's language processing, it provides empirical principles for classroom materials design. Finally, research
serves to explore the claim that task design and processing conditions can be chosen deliberately by a teacher to
guide a learner's focus of attention to particular aspects of the language being learned.
For the above reasons, the present study also aims at conducting research in the area of task-based language
teaching to explore how task structure as a task characteristic and planning time, as a condition under which tasks
are performed affect learner's performance.
1.1. Task structure
Foster and Skehan (1996), and Skehan and Foster (1997), examined a series of task characteristics and task
condition variables on three different aspects of L2 performance, i.e. fluency, accuracy and complexity. Three
different task types - personal information exchange, decision-making and narrative - were employed in these
studies. Since two of the tasks employed in these studies resulted in more fluent performance and under planned
conditions they led to increases in accuracy, they differed strikingly from the other tasks used in these two studies.
This was not completely in line with the predictions. Therefore, the post hoc analysis led to an interpretation that
another variable other than task-type and planning must be at work. The interpretation was that the clear inherent
structure of these two tasks helped ease the processing burden of the task.
This finding led to another study by Skehan and Foster (1999) in which the degree of task structure and
processing conditions on narrative retellings were investigated. As a result, Skehan and Foster (1999) reported that
the structured task generated more fluent and more accurate performance while complexity left unaffected.
Tavakoli and Skehan (2005) explained that a task could be regarded as structured in case it had these
characteristics: a clear time line, a script, a story with a conventional beginning and middle and end and finally, an
appeal to what is familiar and organized in the speaker's mind.
Following the explanations they gave, Tavakoli and Skehan (2005), conducted a study in which they explored the
influence of task structure on task performance. In their study, Tavakoli and Skehan, selected four narrative tasks
which differed with regard to their internal structure.
Results indicated that the structured tasks generated more accurate and more fluent language than the
unstructured tasks. The findings also showed that one of the structured tasks generated greater complexity of
language compared with the other tasks.
Another study to find out the effect of task structure on language performance was carried out by Tavakoli and
Foster (2008). In this study, Tavakoli and Foster, sought to operationalize the narrative structure by choosing two
structured and two unstructured tasks. They defined tasks with loose structure, the ones in which the events could be
reordered without compromising the story while this is not possible for the tasks with tight structures. Results
showed that tightly structured tasks led to more accurate performance. However, with regard to fluency, the
performance on structured tasks was just slightly more fluent.
1.2. Task-based planning
Ellis (2005: 3, 4) classifies task-based planning to pre-task and within-task planning. These two are distinguished
according to the time when the planning takes place either before the task performance or during its performance.
Ellis also divided pre-task planning into rehearsal and strategic planning and within-task planning into pressured and
unpressured. Rehearsal provides learners with an opportunity to perform the task before the main performance. That

3680

Faezeh Mehrang and Massoud Rahimpour / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 36783686

is, there is task repetition with the first performance being as a preparation for a subsequent performance, while in
strategic planning, learners prepare to perform the task by considering the content they will need to encode and how
to express this content. As Ellis states, within-task planning can be achieved most easily by manipulating the time
made available to the learners for the on-line planning of what to say/write in a task performance. In an unpressured
performance learners can engage in careful on-line planning. In pressured performance, learners will need to engage
in rapid planning. According to Ellis' explanations, it is clear that pressured within-task planning will result in
unplanned language discourse.
Studies examining the impact of planning conditions on language production include Crookes (1989), Ellis and
Yuan (2004), Foster and Skehan (1996, 1999), Gilabert (2005), Ortega (1999), Skehan and Foster (1997, 1999).
Investigating the results of the above studies showed that giving learners planning time has a favourable effect
upon performance and is associated with greater fluency and complexity in almost all studies. However, with
accuracy, results are not consistent enough. Thus, more research is needed before we can decide how planning
affects accuracy. The present paper is an attempt to fill this gap in current literature.
2. This Study
The research undertaken here is designed to test the way task structure, which is a task characteristic, impacts
language production when learners engage in performing the task under two conditions of planned vs. unplanned.
2.1. Research questions:
1. What is the effect of task structure, i.e. loosely structured tasks vs. tightly structured tasks, on second language
performance?
2. What is the effect of task condition, i.e. planned vs. unplanned, on second language performance?
2.2. Research hypotheses:
1. Structured tasks will lead to more fluent and accurate performance, but not to more complex performance.
2. Planning conditions will lead to more complex and more fluent performance, but not to more accurate
performance.
2.3. Design
A 2 2 factorial design was used to investigate the influence of two independent variables, i.e. planning
condition and task structure on second language speakers' performance.
Planning condition was a between-participant variable and had two levels with the participants belonging to
either of the two conditions namely, planned and unplanned. Task structure was operationalised through two
different picture series, one being as the structured task (see appendix A) and the other as the unstructured one (see
appendix B). Unlike planning condition, task structure was a within-participant variable; that is, all participants
performed both tasks.
2.4. Participants
Participants of the study were 64 language learners (27 males and 37 females) studying English at a Language
Institute in Tabriz, Iran, and aged between 14 and 50. They were studying English as a foreign language at an upperintermediate level and had been studying English for at least 2 years. The participants were from Turkish and
Persian language backgrounds and all had taken classes in which speaking and listening activities were common and
they were not allowed to use Persian. The only contact they had with English outside the classroom was at school or
university. They were selected on the basis of their scores to ensure homogeneity.
2.5. Setting and procedures

Faezeh Mehrang and Massoud Rahimpour / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 36783686

3681

Since planning was a between-participant variable, the participants of the study were randomly assigned to either
the planned or unplanned conditions.
After that, each participant was required to retell each of the picture prompts in turn. Under the unplanned
condition, they were given just 30 seconds to look at the pictures before they started narration. Then, the participants
had the picture series in hand, and narrated the story to the researcher while looking at them. The same process was
repeated for the second task. Participants were asked to narrate each story in 2 to 3 minutes. The reason to choose
these time intervals was to do away with any on-line planning.
Under the planned condition, the participants were told that they had 5 minutes to look at each picture series and
plan what to say. They were also given a piece of paper and a pen to take notes if needed. However, they were
reminded that they wouldnt be allowed to use their notes while they were telling their stories. After 5 minutes, the
participants told the story in 2 to 3 minutes, and the researcher recorded their performances. The same process was
repeated for the second task.
2.6. Measures
2.6.1. Accuracy measure (Error-free T-units)
T-units: all the main clauses plus subordinate clauses attached to or embedded in them were counted as T-units.
Error-free T-units: only those T-units that contained no grammatical, syntactic, lexical, or spelling errors were
counted as error-free T-units.
To measure accuracy, the number of error free T-units was divided by the total number of t-units (Gilabert,
2005).
2.6.2. Fluency measure (Number of words per minute)
Fluency was achieved by calculating the number of words per minute (Skehan and Foster, 1999).
2.6.3. Complexity measure (Lexical density)
The number of lexical, or 'open class', words in a text (full verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs ending in ly)
divided by total words multiplied by 100 (Rahimpour, 1997, 1999).
3. Results
To find out the way the two independent variables affect the dependent variables, the raw scores of the
participants were fed into the computer software SPSS (version 17) for further data analysis. In the following
section, the results are analyzed according to the two hypotheses of the study.
The first hypothesis predicted that structured tasks will lead to more fluent and accurate performance, but not to
more complex performance. Thus, the paired samples t-test was employed to find out the impact of task structure,
which was the within-subjects variable, on the participants' performances. The results of the t-tests are presented in
tables 1 and 2. Table 1 presents the results under the planned condition while table 2 focuses on the results under the
unplanned condition. As it's indicated in these two tables, task structure doesnt affect accuracy (0.295 > 0.05; 0.202
> 0.05). As a result, the first hypothesis is supported with regard to accuracy. When fluency is concerned, language
produced by the learners under the planned condition is more fluent for the structured task (0.008 < 0.05); however,
under the unplanned condition fluency didn't increase (0.290 > 0.05) when learners engaged in performing the
structured task. As a consequence, the first hypothesis is partially proved regarding fluency. Finally, as it was
hypothesized complexity remains unaffected as a result of task structure (0.110 > 0.05; 0.107 > 0.05).
Table 1. Paired samples test to compare the planned condition performance in structured vs. unstructured tasks
Measure
Structure
Mean
Std. Deviation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Accuracy
Unstructured
.4297
.19298
.295
Structured
.3809
.23292

3682

Faezeh Mehrang and Massoud Rahimpour / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 36783686
Fluency

Unstructured
84.8088
17.11313
.008*
Structured
95.7347
22.50382
Complexity
Unstructured
39.6587
2.95980
.110
Structured
38.5631
3.33508
Table 2. Paired samples test to compare the unplanned condition performance in structured vs. unstructured tasks
Measure
Accuracy
Fluency
Complexity

Structure
Unstructured
Structured
Unstructured
Structured
Unstructured
Structured

Mean
.3784
.3141
87.0497
89.5613
37.8237
39.2750

Std. Deviation
.21221
.21822
18.41859
19.20379
3.57900
4.66352

Sig. (2-tailed)
.202
.290
.107

The second hypothesis predicted that Planning conditions will lead to more complex and more fluent
performance, but not to more accurate performance. Since planning was the between-subjects variable, the
independent samples t-test was employed to investigate its effect on the language produced by the learners. The
results of these tests are indicated in tables 3 and 4. As the tables show, the results of the t-tests for the accuracy of
the performance under planned vs. unplanned conditions are 0.240 > 0.05; 0.316 > 0.05. As a result, the second
hypothesis is proved regarding accuracy. In other words, planning has no effect on the accuracy of performance.
With fluency, the results of the tests indicate that fluency is not affected by planning (0.242 > 0.05; 0.616 > 0.05)
rejecting the second hypothesis. Regarding complexity, the second hypothesis is partially proved. That is, planning
leads to more complexity only when learners are engaged in performing the unstructured task (0.029 < 0.05), not the
structured one (0.458 > 0.05).
Table 3. Independent samples test to compare structured task performance under planned vs. unplanned conditions
Measure
Accuracy
Fluency
Complexity

Planning
Unplanned
Planned
Unplanned
Planned
Unplanned
Planned

Mean
.3141
.3809
89.5613
95.7347
39.2750
38.5631

Std. Deviation
.21822
.23292
19.20379
22.50382
4.66352
3.33508

Sig. (2-tailed)
.240
.242
.458

Table 4. Independent samples test to compare unstructured task performance under planned vs. unplanned conditions
Measure
Accuracy
Fluency
Complexity

Planning
Unplanned
Planned
Unplanned
Planned
Unplanned
Planned

Mean
.3784
.4297
87.0497
84.8088
37.8237
39.6587

Std. Deviation
.21221
.19298
18.41859
17.11313
3.57900
2.95980

Sig. (2-tailed)
.316
.616
.029*

In sum, the results showed that neither planning time conditions nor task structure affected the accuracy of
language production. Fluency increased when learners engaged in performing the structured task under the planned
condition and finally, complexity was affected when planners performed the unstructured task.
4. Discussion
The present study addressed the impact of task structure and planning conditions on the accuracy, fluency and
complexity of task response. Consequently, two hypotheses were proposed earlier predicting this impact.
4.1. First hypothesis

Faezeh Mehrang and Massoud Rahimpour / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 36783686

3683

The first research hypothesis was "tightly structured tasks would lead to more fluent and more accurate
performance, but not to more complexity."
Data analysis revealed that accuracy of the performance remains unaffected from the unstructured to the
structured task. As a result, the first hypothesis is rejected regarding accuracy. However, this finding is consistent
with the findings of the research by Skehan and Foster (1999).
Regarding fluency, the results provide partial confirmation for our hypothesis. In fact, fluency increased as a
result of task structure only when learners performed the task under the planned condition. Tavakoli and Foster
(2008) accounted for this effect by suggesting that a monologic task makes greater demands on attentional resources
than an interactive task. That is, a very long turn, such as a monologue, gives no breathing space for on-line
planning as can be snatched while listening to an interlocutor and therefore, planning has to be done while speaking
or at moments of not speaking (i.e. pausing). If the attentional load gets too great, pausing has to increase in order to
allow, for example, the formulator to catch up with what the conceptualizer has been feeding in (Levelt, 1989). So,
strategic planning can assist conceptualization in particular and thus contribute to enhanced fluency (Ellis, 2005).
Consequently, if learners have the opportunity to plan their performance before performing structured tasks, they
will be able to produce more fluent language.
Reported findings confirmed the first hypothesis regarding complexity. That is, task structure had no impact on
the complexity of language production which is in line with the findings of the research by Skehan and Foster
(1999) and Tavakoli and Foster (2008).
Tavakoli and Foster (2008) further pointed to the effect of environment on complexity. Learners in Iran, as it is
the case with the present study, don't benefit from the exposure to the target language outside the classroom. As a
result, they fail to develop diverse vocabulary and more complex language.
4.4. Second hypothesis
The second research hypothesis claimed that "tasks under planned conditions would lead to more complex
and more fluent performances, but not to more accurate performance."
Results of the present study indicated that planning had no effect on the accuracy of the performance. As a result,
the second hypothesis is proved regarding accuracy. This finding supports the results of the other studies in the
literature (Crookes, 1989; Gilabert, 2005; Ortega, 1999; Wigglesworth, 1997) and suggests that when learners are
allowed to plan, they choose to focus on meaning and plan what they want to say rather than planning grammatical
forms.
Regarding fluency, findings of the present study present a puzzle and are at odds with the results of the previous
research in the literature (Foster and Skehan, 1996; Skehan and Foster, 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997; Gilabert, 2005;
Tavakoli and Skehan, 2005). Findings of all of the studies mentioned indicated that planning time conditions
promote fluency. On the other hand, the present study does not report any effect of planning time on fluency. Of
course, planners enjoyed superiority over non-planners when they engaged in performing the structured task, but
this amount of increase did not produce significance.
Regarding fluency, this difference in the results of the present study and the previous research can be attributed to
the differences in the measures of discourse analysis for coding the data.
When complexity is concerned, the findings indicate that planning has a positive effect on complexity only when
the participants performed the unstructured task. Therefore, the second hypothesis is partially proved regarding
complexity.
Previous research reporting the gain in complexity as a result of planning time conditions includes Crookes,
1989; Skehan and Foster, 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997; Foster and Skehan,1999; Gilaber, 2005; Tavakoli and Skehan,
2005. This can be justified according to the fact that planners tend to focus on meaning and plan the content of their
performance and thus, produce more complexity.

References

3684

Faezeh Mehrang and Massoud Rahimpour / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 36783686

Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 367 83.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ellis, R., and Yuan, f. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. SSLA, 26, 59
84.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18, 299 323.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching
Research, 3/3, 215 247.
Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Barcelona, The University of Barcelona,
Spain.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intension to articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Long, M. H., and Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26/1, 27 55.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and Focus on form in L2 Oral Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109 148.
Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task complexity, task condition, and variation in L2 oral discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of
Queensland, Australia.
Rahimpour, M. (1999). Task complexity and variation in interlanguage. In N.O. Jungheim & P. Robinson (Eds.), Pragmatics and pedagogy:
Proceedings of the 3rd pacific second language research, vol. 2, (pp. 115 134). Tokyo: PacSLRF.
Rahimpour, M. (2007). Task complexity and variation in L2 learner's oral discourse. Linguistics working papers, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia.
Rahimpour, M. (2008). Implementation of task-based approaches to language teaching. Foreign Language Research, 41, Special Issue, 45 61.
Rahimpour, M., and Hazar, F. (2007). Topic familiarity effect on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of L2 oral output. The Journal of Asia TEFL,
4/4, 191 212.
Rahimpour, M. and Yaghoubi, M. (2008). Examining teacher and student gender influence on task prompted L2 oral variability. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 16/2, 133 150.
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45/1, 99 140.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P.
Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287 318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 43/1, 1 32.
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, intention, uptake, and
perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 45/3, 193 213.
Skehan, p. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36/ Review Article, 1 14.
Skehan, P., and Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influence on foreign language performance. Language Teaching
Research, 1, 185 211.
Skehan, P., and Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49/1, 93
120.
Tavakoli, p., and Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance
in a second language (pp. 239 277). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Tavakoli, P., and Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language
Learning, 58/2, 439 473.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85 106.
Wilkins, D. A., (1974). Notional syllabuses and the concept of a minimum adequate grammar. In S. P. Corder and E. roulette (Eds.), Linguistic
insights in applied linguistics (pp. 119 128). Brussels: AIMAV. Paris: Didier.
Wilkins, D. A., (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D., and Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to
speakers of other languages (pp. 173 179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Faezeh Mehrang and Massoud Rahimpour / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 36783686

Appendix A

3685

3686

Faezeh Mehrang and Massoud Rahimpour / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 36783686

Figure 1. Signature task (structured task)

Appendix B

Figure 2. Birthday task (unstructured task)