From an information processing perspective, humans have a limited attentional capacity for processing information. Thus, second language (L2) researchers have investigated the role of pretask planning in task performance, finding that planning results in greater fluency and complexity but has mixed effects on accuracy. However, most planning studies have not isolated pretask instructions from planning, thus making it unclear as to what caused the improvement in planned performance. In addition, measures of fluency, complexity, and accuracy provide insight into task performance but do not shed light on the L2 learning process. Therefore, the present study investigated whether pretask instructions and planning promote focus on form — lexical or grammatical language-related episodes (LREs) — during task-based interaction. One hundred and ten Korean EFL learners completed two oral picture narrative tasks in dyads over a two-week period during their regularly scheduled classes under one of four conditions: specific instructions with pretask planning, specific instructions without planning, general instructions with planning, and general instructions without planning. The findings revealed that regardless of pretask instructions and planning opportunity, the learners focused on vocabulary. In addition, while pretask instructions revealed some role for manipulating attention to form, planning did not have any effect. Possible explanations are provided.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. ( 2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classrooms . Language Awareness, 11(1), 1-13.
2.
Batstone, R. ( 2005). Planning as discourse activity: a sociocognitive view . In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 277-95). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
3.
Crookes, G. ( 1988). Planning, monitoring, and second language development: a review. Technical Report No. 4. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Center for Second Language Classroom Research .
4.
Crookes, G. ( 1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), 367-83.
5.
Ellis, R. ( 1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(1), 1-20.
6.
Ellis, R. ( 2001). Introduction: investigation of form-focused instruction . Language Learning, 51, supplement 1, 1-46.
7.
Ellis, R. ( 2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
Ellis, R. ( 2005). Planning and task-based performance: theory and research . In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 4-34). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
9.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. ( 2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-32.
10.
Fortune, A. & Thorp, D. ( 2001). Knotted and entangled: new light on the identification, classification, and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks. Language Awareness, 10, 143-60.
11.
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. ( 1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-323.
12.
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. ( 1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215-47.
13.
Heaton, J. ( 1975). Beginning composition through pictures. Harlow: Longman.
14.
Hulstijn, J. & Hulstijn, W. ( 1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34(1), 23-43.
15.
Kellerman, E. ( 1985). If at first you do succeed … In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 345-53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
16.
Leeser, M. ( 2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81.
17.
Lightbown, P. ( 1985). Great expectations: second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 173-89.
18.
Loewen, S. ( 2003). Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 315-45.
19.
Long, M. ( 1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
20.
Long, M. ( 1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-68). London: Academic Press.
21.
Long, M. & Robinson, P. ( 1998). Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
McLaughlin, B. ( 1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113-28.
23.
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.
24.
Ortega, L. ( 1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 108-48.
25.
Pica, T. ( 1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: a NorthAmerican view. Language Teaching Research1, 48-72.
26.
Sangarun, J. ( 2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111-42). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
27.
Schmidt, R. ( 2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
28.
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. ( 1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language . In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
29.
Skehan, P. ( 1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction . Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
30.
Skehan, P. ( 1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. ( 2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Swain, M. ( 1995). Three functions of output in second language learning . In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-44).
33.
Swain, M. ( 1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. ( 1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-37.
35.
Tajima, M. ( 2003). The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
36.
VanPatten, B. ( 1990). Attending to form and content in the input: an experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-99.
37.
VanPatten, B. ( 1999). Processing instruction as form-meaning connections: issues in theory and research. In J. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: multiple perspectives (pp. 43-68). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
38.
Wendel, J. ( 1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University Japan, Tokyo.
39.
Wigglesworth, G. ( 1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85-106.
40.
Williams, J. ( 1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 693-711.
41.
Williams, J. ( 1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, Supplement 1, 303-46.
42.
Williams, J. ( 2005) Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 671-91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
Yoshimura, F. ( 2006). Does manipulating foreknowledge of output tasks lead to differences in reading behavior, text comprehension, and noticing of language form?Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 419-34.
44.
Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. ( 2003). The effects of pretask planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.
