The Effect of Strategic and Online Planning on Accuracy of L1 Learners' Written Production

Asghar Salimi, Elham Khayef, Davood Amini


In recent years, the application of writing tasks has effectively shed lights on promoting learners' written production. Research on SLA stresses the importance of tasks in the case of complexity, fluency and accuracy (Foster, 1997, 2001; Givon, 1985; Robinson, 2001; Skehan, 1998), since they have had fluctuating impact on L2 learning. However, what is neglected in the literature is the impact of writing task on learners' first language written production that in most cases has paved the way for transmitting ideas in L2. Therefore, the essential aim in the present study is to investigate the effect of strategic planning time and on – line planning time on accuracy of first language learners' written production.  To attain the goal, two classes of 6th grade school students (n = 32, n = 24) were selected. The students did the writing task in the first session which was considered as a pretest in the study. Following a weekly "time out", in the class A (n = 32) strategic planning time was presented to the students and in the class B (n = 24), on – line planning time was conducted for ten minutes proceeding writing task. Time limit to complete the writing production was 30 minutes in both classes. The collected written data was quantified in terms of accuracy measure. Paired sample T-tests and independent sample T-test were conducted to statistically analyze data. The obtained results revealed that strategic planning led to much accuracy in post task in terms of L1 written production compared to pre task. However, the result of statistical analysis in on – line planning time was not significant, since it didn't result in students' L1 writing progress.



Strategic planning time, online planning time, written production, accuracy

Full Text:



Birch, B. (2005). Learning and Teaching English Grammar. K-12 Prentice Hall, White Plains, NY

Byrd, P. (2005). Instructed grammar. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teachin and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 545–562.

Candlin, C. (1987). Toward task – based language learning. In Candlin, C. & Murphy, D. (Ed.), Language Learning Tasks (pp. 5–22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chen, H.-C. & Leung, Y., -S. (1989). Patterns of Lexical Processing in a non native language. Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning , Memory, and Cognition, 12, 397 – 401.

Crooks, G. (1989). Planning and interlangugae variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–83.

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the classroom. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage validity in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20.

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 1-46). Malden, MA: Black well publishers.

Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .

Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal: English Language Teaching and Research Article. University of Auckland.

Foster, P. (2001). Lexical measures in Task – based performance. Paper presented at the AAAL Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task – based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (3), 299–324.

Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The effect of source of planning and focus of planning on task – based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185–214.

Frodesen, J. (2001). Grammar in writing. In: Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.), teaching English as Second or Foreign Language, 3rd . edition. Heinel and Heinle, Boston, pp. 233–248.

Frodesen, J., Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In: Kroll, B. (Ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 141–161.

Givon, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The cross–Linguistic Study of Language acquisition, Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 100 –1028.

Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401-436.

Kroll, J. F. & Curley, J. (1988). Lexical Memory in Novice Bilinguals: the role of concept in retrieving second language words. In M. M. Grunenberg, P. E. Morris & R. N. Sykes(eds.), Practical aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues. Chichester: John Wiley.

Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and Communicating in Language Classroom. Boston: McGrew–Hill.

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non- native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistic, 4(2), 126–41.

Long, M. (1985). A role of instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Ed.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.

Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task – group interaction. University of Hawai'I Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 8(2), 1–26.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to a task-based syllabus design.TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-49.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different length of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.

Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–48.

Potter, M. C., So, K. F., Von Eckardt, B. & Feldman, L. B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23 – 38.

Probhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task complexity, task condition, and variation in L2 oral discourse.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.

Rahimpour, M. (1999). Task complexity and variation in interlanguage. In N.O. Jungheim& P. Robinson (Ed.), pragmatic and pedagogy: Proceeding of the 3rd Pacific Second Language Research Forum (pp. 115– 134). Tokyo, Japan: Pac LRF.

Rahimpour, M. (2008). Implementation of task – based approaches to language teaching. Pazhuhesh–e– zabanha–ye–kharejeh Journal, University of Tehran.

Rahimpour, M. (2009). Theoretical and practical issues in task-based language teaching and syllabus design. Plenary speaker at the 7th international TELLSI conference, October, 20-22, University of Yazd, Iran.

Robinson, P., Chi–chien Ting, S. & Urwin, J. (1995). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC 26. PP:62–78.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive load, and syllabus design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, Cambridge, University Press.

Sangarun, J. (2001). The effect of pre-task planning on foreign language performance. Doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–72.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post – task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3).

SKehan, P. & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing condition on narrative retelling. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.

Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University Japan.

Wiggleworth, J. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 51, 303–46.

Wiggleworth, J. (2001). Influence on performance in task–based oral assessment. In Bygate, Skehan & Swain (Eds.).

Yuan, F. &Ellis, R. (2002). The effect of pre-task planning and on-line planning onfluency, accuracy, and complexity in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1).



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.