Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp.938-956
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 30 Jul 2022 Revised 01 Sep 2022 Accepted 30 Sep 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202210.938

Effects of Pre-task and On-line Planning on Complexity, Fluency, and Accuracy in Computer-based English Speaking and Writing Tests

Mijin Joo
Professor, Department of English, Division of Global Human Resources, Kangwon National University, Tel: (033)-570-6654 ing1115@hanmail.net


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study examined the effects of pre-task and on-line planning on discourse and scores in terms of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in CBT speaking and writing tests. Fifty-six Korean university students took both the CBT speaking and writing tests under three different planning time conditions (pre-task, on-line, and no planning time). All test performance was scored by two raters, and their discourse was transcribed and analyzed. The primary findings are as follows. First, while there were no significant differences in discourse measures of the CBT speaking test performance, those of the writing test were affected by different planning conditions. The test-takers produced more fluent and accurate language with planning time than without planning time. Second, the planning time did not influence the scores of both CBT speaking and writing tests. Lastly, in discourse analysis, complexity and fluency are negatively correlated with accuracy under pre-task and on-line planning conditions.

Keywords:

pre-task planning, on-line planning, CBT speaking and writing tests, complexity, fluency, accuracy

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021S1A5A2A01060567). / This study has been worked with the support of a research grant of Kangwon National University in 2021.

References

  • Ahmadian, M. J., M. Tavakoli and H. Dastjerdi. 2015. The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 speech. Language Learning Journal 43(1), 41-56. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.681795]
  • Anderson, J. R. 1995. Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. New York: Wiley.
  • Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bachman, L. F. and A. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Brown, A. 1993. Test development process: Test-takers’ reactions to a tape-mediated test of proficiency in spoken Japanese. Language Testing 10(3), 277-303. [https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229301000305]
  • Crookes, G. 1989. Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies Language Acquisition 11(4), 367-83. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008391]
  • Elder. C. and N. Iwashita. 2005. Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference? In R. Ellis, ed., Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, 219-239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.14eld]
  • Ellis, R. 2005. Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis, ed., Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, 3-34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.03ell]
  • Ellis, R. and F. Yuan. 2005. The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis, ed., Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, 167-192. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.11ell]
  • Ellis, R. and F. Yuan. 2004. The effects of planning and fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(1), 59-84. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034]
  • Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(3), 299-323. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047]
  • Iwashita, N., T. McNamara. and C. Elder. 2001. Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design, Language Learning 21(3), 401-436. [https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00160]
  • Kenyon, D. M. and V. Malabonga. 2001. Comparing examinee attitudes toward computer-assisted and other oral proficiency assessments. Language Learning and Technology 5(2), 60-83.
  • Ochs, E. 1979. Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givon, ed., Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, 51-80. New York: Academic Press. [https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_004]
  • O’Loughlin, K. 2001. Studies in Language Testing 13: The Equivalence of Direct and Semi-direct Speaking Tests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ortega, L. 1999. Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(1), 108-48. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001047]
  • Shohamy, E. 1994. The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing 11(2), 99-123. [https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229401100202]
  • Skehan, P. 1996. Second-language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis and D. Willis, eds., Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, 17-30. Oxford: Heinemann.
  • Skehan, P., and P. Foster. 2005. Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis, ed., Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, 239-273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.12ske]
  • Tavarkoli, P. and P. Skehan. 2005. Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis, ed., Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, 239-273. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav]
  • Li, L., J. Chen and L. Sun. 2015. The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly 49(1), 38-66. [https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.159]
  • Mehnert, U. 1998. The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20(1), 83-108. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001041]
  • Weigle. S. C. 2002. Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732997]
  • Wendel, J. N. 1997. Planning and Second Language Narrative Production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Japan.
  • Wigglesworth, G. 1997. An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing 14(1), 85-106. [https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400105]
  • Wigglesworth, G. 2001. Influences on performance in task-based oral assessments. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain, eds., Task Based Learning, 186-209. London: Longman.
  • Wigglesworth, G. and C. Elder. 2010. An investigation of the effectiveness and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment. Quarterly 7(1), 1-24. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300903031779]
  • Van Patten, B. 1990. Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12(3), 287-301. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177]
  • Yuan, F. and R. Ellis. 2003. The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24(1), 1-27. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1]