• Mojtaba Aghajani Institución Universitaria Salazar y Herrera
  • Hanieh Amanzadeh Alzahra University


This study attempted to explore the effects of task planning on young Iranian EFL learners’ writing proficiency. More specifically, the study was intended to examine such effects on the three dimensions of language proficiency, namely complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). In this study, 30 young Iranian University students with the intermediate level of proficiency were selected from Khatam ol-Anbia University in Tehran, Iran. All the participants were randomly assigned into the control and experimental groups. The Oxford placement test was run in order to make sure that the two groups were homogeneous. Afterward, a series of writing tasks were developed to examine participants’ performance in writing. In the experimental group, the participants were supposed to do task planning based on the instruction they received from the instructor, while in the control group, participants, although instructed about the planning, were not required to do so. The results of the study indicated that task planning had positive effect on almost all the dimensions of language proficiency. This implies that EFL teachers can be very hopeful to successfully apply task planning in their classes because learners are willing to adapt themselves to this new area of language teaching. Eventually, it is believed that the results of such research will encourage EFL teachers and learners to use task planning and have more positive attitude towards it.

Impacto de la planificación de tareas en la fluidez, exactitud y la complejidad al escribir: un estudio de caso en estudiantes universitarios de Irán


Este estudio intentó explorar los efectos de la planificación de tareas en el dominio de la escritura en inglés como lengua extranjera en universitarios de Irán. Específicamente, el estudio tenía la intención de examinar dichos efectos en las tres dimensiones del dominio del idioma, a saber, la complejidad, la precisión y la fluidez. En este estudio, 30 jóvenes estudiantes universitarios iraníes con un nivel intermedio fueron seleccionados de la Universidad Khatam ol-Anbia en Teherán, Irán. Todos los participantes fueron asignados al azar en los grupos control y experimental. Se aplicó el Oxford Placement Test para verificar que ambos grupos fueran homogéneos. Posteriormente, se desarrollaron una serie de tareas de escritura para examinar el desempeño de los participantes. En el grupo experimental, los participantes debían hacer una planificación de tareas basada en una instrucción que recibieron del instructor, mientras que en el grupo de control, los participantes, aunque recibieron instrucciones sobre la planificación, no estaban obligados a hacerlo. Los resultados del estudio indicaron que la planificación de tareas tuvo un efecto positivo en casi todas las dimensiones de la competencia lingüística. Esto implica que los profesores pueden aplicar con éxito la planificación de tareas en sus clases porque los alumnos están dispuestos a adaptarse a esta nueva área de la enseñanza de idiomas. Eventualmente, se cree que los resultados de esta investigación alentará a los maestros y aprendices a usar la planificación de tareas y tener una actitud más positiva hacia ella.



Ågren, M. Granfeldt, J. & Schlyter, S. (2012). The Growth of Complexity and Accuracy in L2 French: Past observations and recent applications of developmental stages Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency Investigating Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA.

Anderson, J.R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brumfit, C.J. (1979). Communicative language teaching: An educational perspective. In C.J. Brumfit, & K. Johnson (Eds.). The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 183–191). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brumfit, C.J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.). Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). London: Heinemann.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.).

Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.

Clark, H., & Clark. G. (1977). psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Crookes, G. (1989). ‘Planning and interlanguage variability.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 367-83.

Ellis, R. (1987). ‘Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style in the use of the past tense.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12-20.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press, (1997) (5th). Planning and task performance in a second language, John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ellis, R. (2005). ‘Planning and task-based research: theory and research’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and Task-Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Gass, S., A. Mackey, M. Fernandez and M. Alvarez-Torres. (1999). ‘The effects of task repetition on linguistic output,’ Language Learning 49: 549–80.

Hakuta, K. (1975). Learning to speak a second language: What exactly does the child learn? In D.P. Dato (Ed.). Developmental psycholinguistics: theory and applications (pp. 193–207). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Hammerly, H. (1990). Fluency and accuracy: Toward balance in language teaching and learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Van Daele, S. (2005). Structure complexity and the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction. In A. Housen, & M. Pierrard (Eds.). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 235–269). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hunt, K.W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589.

Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387– 417.

Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.). Perspectives on fluency (pp. 25–42). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Mehnert, V. (1998). ‘The effects of different length of time for planning on second language performance.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20:52-83.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nihalani, N.K. (1981). The quest for the L2 index of development. RELC Journal, 12(2), 50–56.

Ortega, L. (1999). ‘Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 108-48.

O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

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

Richards, J. & Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: an Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge University Press.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–231.

Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition and task-based instruction. In J. Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.). Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17–30). Oxford: Heinemann.

Skehan, P. (1996a). ‘A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction’ Applied Linguistics, 17:38-62.

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

Thompson, T. (2010). ‘Family and Friend3’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287–301.

Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and Second Language Narrative Production. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, Japan.

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pairs versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445-466.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.