Language Teaching (2023), 1–16

doi:10.1017/S0261444823000344

PLENARY SPEECH

Linking second language speaking task performance and

language testing
Peter Skehan
University College London, London, UK
Email: peterskehan@gmail.com

(Received 10 July 2023; accepted 22 July 2023)

Abstract
This written version of a plenary to the Language Testing Research Colloquium relates research into
second language speaking task performance to language testing. A brief review of models of communica-
tive competence and of speaking is provided. Then, two major areas within testing are discussed: the con-
cepts of difficulty and ability for use. The next section covers research into spoken task-based
performance, covering effects from task conditions, and from task characteristics. In addition, the meas-
urement of such performance is described and briefly compared with performance rating in testing. Then,
the final section relates the task research findings to language testing. A framework for testing spoken per-
formance is outlined, and the general claim made that effective sampling through tests, in order to gen-
eralise to real-world performance, can usefully draw on findings from second language task research, as
well as the distinction between Conceptualiser and Formulator processes.

1. Introduction
It was a considerable surprise to me to receive the Messick award. The context for this award is language
testing, and while there have been times when I have published in this area, they are (mostly) well in the
past, and so I was uncertain what I could cover in the associated Messick Memorial Lecture (which is given
by the awardee). As a solution to this problem, I decided to draw upon more recent work I have done,
focussing on second language (L2) spoken task performance, and to relate this body of work to the testing
of speaking. My justification for this is that speaking figures prominently in the general area of testing, but
that the research I would draw on, task-based performance with a psycholinguistic approach, while hardly
unknown to testers, is less prominent than other approaches to devising and calibrating tests. My assump-
tion was that there is potential gain in making links between these different areas, not least because task
researchers are not so test-format driven. They also have different theories for conceptualising tasks, high-
light different influential variables, and use different methodologies for measuring task performance.
In this written version of the plenary, there are four sections. The first explores some major models
of both communicative competence and speaking. Second, I discuss two general concepts: test-task
difficulty, a central puzzle in language testing, and ability for use, the capacity to produce actual lan-
guage, not simply knowledge about language. The third section tries to cover relevant research from
the task literature, on task characteristics, on the conditions under which tasks are done, and finally
how task performance is measured. Then, the final section tries to relate the task findings to the con-
structs of difficulty, and ability for use, and also to the field of language testing more generally.

Plenary to the 43rd Language Testing Research Colloquium, Messick Memorial Lecture, 11 March 2022, Tokyo (virtual
conference).
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction,
provided the original article is properly cited.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 2 Peter Skehan

2. Models of communicative competence and models of speaking

An early and very influential account of communicative competence (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain,
1980) proposed that it subsumes linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse compe-
tence, and strategic competence. The first three of these are underlying in nature, while strategic com-
petence is drawn into actual performance when problems arise. Perhaps the next major development
was Bachman’s (1990) work, developed further in Bachman and Palmer (2010). Canale and Swain’s
underlying competences are repackaged slightly. An overall Language Knowledge subsumes
Organisational Competence (itself subsuming grammatical competence and textual competence)
and Pragmatic Competence (subsuming sociolinguistic competence and functional competence). A
major change, though, is that Strategic Competence moves into a more central and independent
role – not only implicated when problems occur, but also central to all communication – concerned
to assess a situation, decide on what needs to be said, and then marshal resources for achieving the
aims that are set – in other words, a concern for ability for use. More recent proposals have also
had a role for the dynamic aspects of communication (Xi et al., 2021). Weir (2005), for example,
in his Socio-Cognitive model discusses, within the cognitive component, the role of levels of process-
ing and information sources. Purpura (2016), with a particular emphasis on how different types of
meanings are conveyed, emphasises the role of knowledge sources.
More recently Hulstijn (2015) has proposed a somewhat different model, more psycholinguistic in
nature, less explicitly testing-focussed, and embracing both second and first language (L1) proficiency.
It is based on two distinctions. The first contrasts basic and higher (or extended) language cognition.
Basic cognition, especially in the L1, concerns the automatic universal language system, possessed by
all native speakers, while Higher Cognition is concerned with lower frequency language, often with
literary connections. The second distinction, and the one that is more relevant to the L2 case, is
between core and periphery. The core involves linguistic knowledge AND speed of access. The periphery
includes interactional ability, strategic competence (especially for difficult conditions and also limited
knowledge), metalinguistic knowledge, and knowledge of various types of oral and written discourse.
Hulstijn, while trying to present a more unified version of L1 and L2 proficiency, introduces a new
concern – speed of system operation – and then proposes a different view of how underlying knowl-
edge is mobilised for actual language use.
So far, I have explored broader issues of communicative competence and proficiency. Next, I turn
to speaking, specifically, the focus of this plenary, and the point of connection with research into task-
based performance. There are several psycholinguistic models of L1 speaking. Arguably the one that
has had the greatest impact on L2 speaking research is Levelt (1989) (and see De Bot (1992) and
Kormos (2006) for extensions of the Levelt model to bilingual and L2 speakers). The model proposes
three broad stages in speech production: Conceptualisation, emphasising ideas; Formulation, which
takes the Conceptualiser pre-verbal message, and then clothes that message in language elements;
then the final stage, Articulation, which builds on the phonetic plans generated by the Formulator
to produce actual speech. The Conceptualiser draws upon important knowledge sources (situational
knowledge, discourse models, encyclopaedic knowledge, and so on). The Formulator draws on the
mental lexicon to handle pre-verbal message demands through processes driven by rich lemma
retrieval. Importantly, in the L1 case, these demands are met, in real-time, below the level of con-
sciousness, and enable parallel, modular processing – that is, each speaking stage is getting on with
its job, its bit of a message, simultaneously.
In the L2 case, it is assumed the Conceptualiser functions perfectly well, most of the time, assuming
no external problems. The major difficulties are likely to come at the Formulator stage because the
SECOND language mental lexicon is likely to be less extensive, less elaborate, less organised, less con-
nected and slower than the L1 mental lexicon. Two important implications follow from this. First,
it is likely, when pre-verbal message demands are not met, or met with difficulty, and the speaker
does not abandon the message, that the parallel approach to L1 speaking will become more serial
in nature, as the Formulator uses up most of the attention that is available. Second, it is likely that

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Language Teaching 3

a declarative (rule-based) knowledge system, which probably derives from the instruction the speaker
has received, will be needed and a more explicit mode of using language, based on rules, will be
involved (De Bot, 1992; Kormos, 2006; Skehan, 2018). (Of course, as proficiency increases, these dif-
ficulties diminish, even if they do not disappear entirely.)
There are similarities and differences across these different models, and these offer potential con-
nections between psycholinguistic views of speaking and the nature of communicative competence
and L2 proficiency. Canale and Swain (1980), Bachman (1990), and Hulstijn (2015) all propose under-
lying knowledge sources, and then processes to draw upon such knowledge in actual communication.
They vary in their account of the underlying competences, and even more in their proposals as to how
competences are used. The implications for testing, though, are clear. If one wants to develop a test
directed at speaking proficiency, then the models provide a framework for the underlying competences
to be sampled, and a framework for the way competences are activated. The more extensive and sys-
tematic such sampling can be, presumably the more effective the test, with higher predictive validity.
Models such as these have been hugely influential in test construction over the last 40 years or so.
When we turn to the Levelt model, a L1 model of speaking, there are interesting similarities, but
also some important contrasts. A major similarity concerns Bachman’s view of strategic competence
and Levelt’s views on Conceptualiser operations. Both are concerned with how speakers engage in idea
generation, selection, and organisation, and also there are connections with the way a Leveltian pre-
verbal message is translated into language. There are also links between Hulstijn’s Linguistic
Knowledge and Levelt’s mental lexicon. Hulstijn also is explicit about the importance of speed of oper-
ation, which connects with how the Formulator can work in real-time, and support parallel processes.
It is the differences between Levelt and the L2 focussed models that are most significant here, since
they have implications for how testing of speaking can be done, and how research into task-based per-
formance may be relevant. The Levelt approach highlights:

• An empirically-grounded model of speaking.

• The normality of its stages working in harmony, in that the demands they place on each other are
‘reasonable’, and so parallel processing is feasible.
• An account of underlying knowledge sources, contrasting knowledge of the world (including
sociolinguistic and pragmatic knowledge), and implicit knowledge of language.
• A clearer account of the lemma-based nature of communication and the role of the mental
lexicon.

This analysis clarifies that it is misleading to over-emphasise competences, of different stripes, and
that real-time communication is underpinned by the nature of mental lexicon (occupying slightly the
place that strategic competence takes in testing models).

3. Implications for language testing

This analysis creates the foundation to consider two major insights, and associated implications. The
first is based on the importance of Levelt’s three major stages in speaking. I assume, following De Bot
(1992) and Kormos (2006), that these same stages are also central in L2 speaking, even if there are
operational differences. This leads to the second insight – that a major first–second language differ-
ence concerns the way the three stages interact with three major knowledge sources, two of which
are language related (the L2 mental lexicon and the declarative L2 knowledge system). The implication,
based on the first insight, is that when we consider test (task) difficulty, we need to separate out dif-
ficulty influences at the Conceptualiser stage from those relevant to the Formulator stage. The second
insight gives the implication that we need to explore more deeply the concept of Ability-for-Use as a
way to better understand any relationship between underlying competences and actual performance.
We will consider each of these implications at a conceptual level next, and this will then pave the way
for a section on how task-based research can make empirical contributions to this analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 4 Peter Skehan

3.1 Conceptualiser and Formulator difficulty are not the same

A little context is necessary. Language testing adores being able to talk about difficulty. Indeed, one of
the major developments in the field in recent decades has been the routine use of Item Response
Models to explore difficulty, with formidable statistical techniques, and gigantic datasets. But to my
mind, these views of difficulty, mostly, though by no means exclusively, item-based, are a little light
on theory of language and language use. The concern is that technical qualities may be prioritised
over construct coverage. Such views also seem to me to make assumptions about the dimensionality
of language performance, so that a minimal number of dimensions are often assumed. A contrasting
approach, Levelt-based, seems to me refreshing as regards the concept of difficulty. As we have already
seen, the sub-processes within Conceptualisation, focussed as they are on ideas, and context, and
stance, are not primarily linguistic in nature. Their product, the pre-verbal message, is proposition-
based, not linguistic-based. In contrast, Formulator operations are thoroughly linguistic. Drawing
on the (L2) mental lexicon, lemmas are retrieved and ‘plugged in’ to the process of language construc-
tion. The information within the lemma is, potentially, very rich, and enables syntax-building, smooth
phonological retrieval, discourse connections and much more. All this needs to be done at speed, with
minimal attentional demands, so that other parts of the system are not derailed (and serial processing
required).
The ‘punchline’ from this analysis should, by now, be obvious. What makes for difficulty in the first
set of operations, within Conceptualisation, is quite distinct from the sorts of things that influence dif-
ficulty in the second, Formulation. In the first case, as we have seen, we are dealing with the ideas that
underlie what is going to be said, and so difficulty is, broadly, going to connect with how ideas are
handled. This means selecting relevant ideas, perhaps relating them to context to say things that
are appropriate. It may mean developing a stance and even point of view. Drawing on previous
encounters will be important and it is indeed likely there will be a tension between simply remember-
ing as a basis for what is said, compared with needing to think actively, and even transform material.
There is also the issue of scale, of how much can be addressed at the Conceptualisation stage to enable
quite a bit of discourse, quite a few pre-verbal messages, to be produced at one time. These could pro-
vide insurance, as it were, for problems ‘downstream’, since they would give a general framework for
the details of later communication. So, difficulty at this stage will be concerned with the nature of such
demands and how people handle them. A small point here is that this analysis is relevant to monologic
AND interactive language contexts. Although, it has to be admitted, the majority of task research
(though not all) is based on monologic tasks, the issues raised are relevant to how Conceptualiser
functions in both contexts. In some ways, it may be that Conceptualiser operations are slightly
eased in interactive contexts, because the speaker-to-come may be able to listen to an interlocutor
AND plan future utterances simultaneously.
Difficulty with Formulation may be very different. The focus is on execution, and much of this dif-
ficulty will derive from the capacity of the L2 mental lexicon to handle the demands driven by the
pre-verbal message. The more difficult the pre-verbal message, the more difficult the lexical retrieval
and associated Formulator processes that are needed. As we have seen, in the L1 case, ‘routine’ func-
tioning is the norm. In the L2 case, difficulty is importantly influenced by the size of the lexicon, by its
organisation, by the completeness of the information stored with any particular lemma, and most of
all, by the speed needed for operation. More frequent language, one assumes, will make for greater
ease, while less frequent and indeed more challenging language will make for difficulty. In addition,
the conditions under which speaking is carried out become important. Communicative (time) pres-
sure, including that from an interlocutor, may have an important role. So might familiarity of infor-
mation, occasions when similar things have been done in the past, and also opportunity to plan. Such
sources of difficulty are generally different to those which make for difficulty with Conceptualisation.
As a result, we have to consider that, for any balanced assessment of communicative competence, sam-
pling will need to cover both of these different sources of difficulty, and to do so systematically if there
is to be a broad basis for generalisation.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Language Teaching 5

The distinction can be illustrated through a matrix, given as Figure 1, contrasting two difficulty
levels for Conceptualisation and two for Formulation. (This 2 × 2 arrangement is, obviously, for illus-
tration only – in reality we are dealing with a cline.) Each significant cell in the matrix is identified by a
capital letter. In each cell, Formulator influences are shown in normal font, and Conceptualiser influ-
ences in italics. The matrix functions as a sampling frame for potential test items or sub-sections, since
more systematic sampling of the ‘space’ so defined would provide a more robust basis for generalisa-
tion to real-world performance.
For illustration, various tasks, both monologic and dialogic, can be placed within this framework.
Cell A could contain the ‘compare family trees’ task (Willis & Willis, 1988), or describing a journey
home from school (Foster & Skehan, 1996), or telling the story in a structured narrative (Wang &
Skehan, 2014). Cell B could be illustrated by a narrative where different elements – for example, back-
ground and foreground information – have to be related to one another (Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005), or
picking the right hike, given interesting stimulus information (Norris et al., 1998). Cell C might involve
a narrative with unavoidably difficult lexis (Wang & Skehan, 2014), or the task of ordering coffee and
dessert (Norris et al., 1998). Cell D would be exemplified by the Fire Chief task, rescuing people from a
burning building, where complex criteria might be involved as well as pressured conditions (Gilabert
et al., 2009).
While the organisation of the matrix derives from Levelt’s model, the ideas it embodies are not
exactly new to the testing community. Something of this sort was influential in the work of the
Hawaiian group (Norris et al., 1998) in devising a large range of potential tasks that could be
drawn on in an academic testing context. Similarly, Luo (2008), with secondary school children in
China, and within the framework of a National Curriculum, used a broadly similar approach. A system
was devised to generate test tasks appropriate to this age-level and context, and this was used to estab-
lish level of difficulty (and see Skehan & Luo, 2020).

3.2 The concept of ability for use is vital in understanding language use in tests
As indicated earlier, in the L2 case the mental lexicon is not so extensive, rich, or fast, so that gaps and
slower operation mean that problems occur. As a result, guaranteed access to implicit knowledge is not
available, and so a L2 learner’s declarative knowledge system has to be used. This is slower, and
attention-demanding, and problems with it may disrupt general communicative effectiveness. As a
result, with L2s, the capacity to mobilise different knowledge resources, and integrate them within
the stages of speaking becomes very important. Hence the need for a construct such as Ability for
Use (Hymes, 1972). At the outset then, a quick overview of my proposals for Ability for Use provide
a structure for what is to come, clarifying the underlying knowledge sources and then the different
components. This is shown in Table 1.
In the rest of this section I will try to address each of these areas in more detail, although the section
will not elaborate on knowledge sources, as these have been covered in the earlier section. The first

Figure 1. Conceptualiser and Formulator ease and difficulty

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 6 Peter Skehan

Table 1. Knowledge sources and ability for use

Knowledge sources
• General knowledge base, plus context and audience sensitivity
• Second language mental lexicon: size, richness, organisation, speed
• Declarative knowledge of the L2

Ability for use

• Conceptualiser and Formulator processes
• Working memory
• Metacognition
o Management of Conceptualiser and Formulator operations
o Awareness of knowledge sources, attentional demands, limitations
o Foresight, trouble identification and avoidance
o Synchronisation of resources
• Compensation ability
o Monitoring
o Compensation
o Resourcefulness

strand concerns Conceptualiser and Formulator processes themselves, and the central claim is that L2
speakers may vary in how effectively they handle such processes. At the Conceptualiser stage, it is
important to retrieve, marshal, organise and manipulate ideas, to evaluate situations, including the
contribution of other participants, and to decide what needs to be said. People vary in how effectively
they might do this, with some faster than others, and more able to draw upon greater range of previous
experience. Scale of Conceptualiser operations is also important. The ‘classic’ output is a pre-verbal
message, but a more macroplanning approach at this stage might generate a set of inter-linked pre-
verbal messages, easing subsequent Formulator work, and even protecting the Formulator as pre-
verbal messages could be returned to more easily. Similarly, the capacity to mobilise and use mem-
orised, ready-made ideas can ease both Conceptualiser and Formulator operations. Turning to the
Formulator stage, speed of operation (and also perhaps the capacity to draw upon wider repertoires
of formulaic language) confer considerable advantages. (Other aspects of Formulator operations will
be dealt with below.) So, a capacity to communicate is partly dependent on the effectiveness with
which the different stages of speaking are handled.
A second, perhaps relatively minor, aspect of Ability for Use is working memory, since there is a
major role for ‘buffers’ to hold material during processing (Skehan, 2022). For speaking, we assume the
existence of an assembly buffer that receives input from different knowledge sources within the stages
of speaking, and that then outputs the actual message (and is then cleared). An implication of this is
that the larger, faster, and more efficient working memory is, the greater the contribution to Ability for
Use. Underlying knowledge sources can be accessed faster and more comprehensively, and operations
to underpin Levelt’s three stages can be more effective. So, it may be the case that those with better
working memories are more effective communicators. There is a word of warning, though. The ‘nar-
row window hypothesis’ (Skehan, 2022) raises the possibility that, for at least some communication,
the range of variation in working memory may not always have FUNCTIONAL significance – there
may be differences, but given the speed and pressures of on-line communication, these differences
may not impact upon performance. As we will see below, there is research that bears on this issue.
I turn next to the remaining components of Ability for Use, and I think I would argue that they are
the most significant for L2 speakers. Metacognition is treated slightly separately here whereas a case
could certainly be made to discuss it within Conceptualiser and Formulator operations. The motiv-
ation to look at it separately connects with the limitations of the second language mental lexicon,
and, as a result, the need to integrate, where appropriate, a declarative knowledge store. Central to
this is speaker insight into the speaking process, and how it can be managed, eased, and even
improved. This depends upon awareness of knowledge sources and of attentional demands and

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Language Teaching 7

limitations. If one knows that modifications may need to be made because of such limitations, it could
well be the case that greater anticipation of likely problems will push the speaker to modify the plan
they are following. In addition, there may be problems in synchronising different resources, so that, for
example, awareness of the advantage of developing a ‘set’ of pre-verbal messages may ease speaking
processes.
Very often, though, despite anticipation and avoidance, problems will occur in L2 speech, and
another aspect of Ability for Use then assumes importance – compensatory/recovery ability.
Compensation focusses on dealing with a problem (syntactic, lexical, discoursal, sociolinguistic)
when it occurs. This may, in turn, be related to effective monitoring, as problems are detected quickly,
and thereby resolved more easily so that some degree of flow is maintained. Recovery is related to this
but has the major difference that a problem may derail communication and force some degree of
regrouping, thus presenting a challenge to ongoing flow. A first problem here is that repair is needed,
but a second problem is that the thread of discourse needs to be rejoined if possible, and so an add-
itional part of ability for use is to retain where one is, in speaking, and to be able, with repair available,
to go back to that point, or to a new relaunching point.
Recalling the earlier communicative competence models, it is clear that there is a great deal of
repackaging in the present account. Bachman’s Strategic Competence, for example, relates to the dis-
cussion on Conceptualiser and Formulator processes. Canale and Swain’s views on strategic compe-
tence relate more to the compensatory aspects of the discussion here. And Hulstijn’s discussion of
speed is psycholinguistic in nature and links well with the operation of the second language mental
lexicon. Hulstijn (2015) also discusses Strategic Competence in very relevant ways. Weir’s (2005) pro-
posals on cognitive validity are clearly linked to Levelt’s (1989) speaking stages and processes. All
approaches, including this one, are wrestling with the knowledge/competence linkage in performance,
so the degree of overlap across the different approaches is considerable.
But there are differences in the present account that are important. First, it links more with an
adapted Leveltian perspective, with stages of speaking and the central role of the mental lexicon,
and also the need to integrate additional knowledge sources such as declarative knowledge. Second,
the database underpinning the discussion draws upon the L2 task performance literature. It is to
this task-based literature that I now turn.

4. L2 task-based research and communicative competence

The literature on L2 task-based research has grown enormously over recent decades, with extensive
theorising and a considerable database now available. It will be argued here that this literature also
has considerable relevance to our understanding of communicative competence and to assessment.
Three aspects of task-based research will be covered here:

• Task conditions, especially planning.

• Task characteristics.
• The measurement of performance.

Additional factors are also discussed, including metacognition, working memory, Conceptualiser–
Formulator balance, and the relevance of proficiency level and speaker style.

4.1 Task conditions

One result of the growth in the task literature is that a range of generalisations are now available, based
on multiple rather than single studies (Ellis, 2009; Skehan, 2018). For example, planning consistently
raises language complexity and fluency, but less consistently accuracy and lexis. Other forms of readi-
ness also have similar effects on performance, such as modelling, video-based preparation, and spe-
cialist knowledge (Bui, 2014). As more time is given, accuracy is first affected, then fluency, and

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 8 Peter Skehan

finally complexity (Mehnert, 1998). Planning also seems to have greater effects with more complex
tasks and at higher proficiency levels (Bui et al., 2019).
In principle, such results should be relevant for language testing. Indeed, there is an argument
(Skehan, 2001) that giving L2 speakers preparation time should have a ‘levelling the playing field’
effect, in that the speaker can relate the task to themselves and their own interests and opinions
more, in a way that is closer to general language use – it is not clear how we can generalise from
test tasks about sudden arbitrary (and even unfamiliar) topics to the use of language in more natural
situations. But there is the problem that there have been studies investigating the planning variable,
within an overt testing context – for example, O’Grady (2019) – which have not replicated the effects
of task research. There may be something about the testing situation that changes approaches to per-
formance, perhaps emphasising conservatism and accuracy, and this washes out the effects of plan-
ning. Alternatively, different measurement approaches may lead to different approaches to precision
(greater detail in tasks, broader rating scale steps in testing). There is clearly scope for more research
here to try to pin down why there are sometimes contradictory results from the two domains – task-
based research and language testing research, where tasks and/or task conditions are central to the
research. In any case, the discrepancy is a little two-edged: if consistent results from one domain,
tasks, often in arguably more ecologically valid contexts, do not generalise, one can ask what that is
saying about the usefulness (or not) of results from testing contexts as a basis for predicting real-world
performance (Norris, 2018).
There is also interesting qualitative research with planning. Francine Pang and I (Pang & Skehan,
2014) carried out a study in which (a) we asked L2 speakers to tell us, retrospectively, what they did
during earlier planning time, and (b) we related what they said about their planning activities to qual-
ity of performance. We discovered some surprising things. Higher CALF (complexity, accuracy, lexis,
fluency) scorers on a narrative task reported that they were more likely, in planning, to emphasise
ideas, rather than grammar and specific language; that they tended to plan small and specific rather
than large and general; that they were more likely to be realistic about what they could remember and
avoided being over-ambitious, tending to assess what they could manage and then not overdo things;
that they sometimes tried to build structure into the way they did a task (and see the next section for
this); and that they were more likely to think about how trouble might occur, and how they could deal
with it.
These results are very interesting and show clearly that not all people use planning opportunities in
the same way. The results also make connection with the earlier discussion on Ability for Use.
Planning, generally, provides scope for Conceptualiser processes to have material to draw on, in a
more organised way. It can also help Formulator operations (though more successful speakers tended
to avoid specificity). But the qualitative research brings out that aspects of metacognition are very
important: some participants clearly made decisions that connected with higher-level performance,
and this seems to link to foresight, to management of complex knowledge sources, to performance
and attentional limitations, and memory. Compensation was also relevant. So, we see that the medi-
ating construct of Ability for Use had a clear connection with how well people did when speaking. The
research database here may be a planning study, but I argue that this has simply enabled a clearer view
of how L2 speakers approach tasks more generally.
There is more to planning than pre-task planning, though. Ellis and Yuan (2005) have researched
online planning – that is, the sort of planning that is made possible when speaking occurs under
unpressured time conditions. They propose that it is possible, in such circumstances, to handle
ongoing Formulation-Articulation while simultaneously planning what will be said next. They report
(Ellis & Yuan, 2005) that such planning is associated with greater accuracy. This basic insight has sti-
mulated additional research, and this too is illuminating for language testing. Earlier it was proposed
that working memory is an important part of ability for use. Yet, Wen (2009) showed that when one
has pre-task planning, there is no correlation between working memory scores and task performance.
However, when there is ON-LINE planning, working memory scores DO correlate with performance
(Ahmadian, 2012). It appears that the benefits of working memory require more processing time

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Language Teaching 9

for their effects to become apparent – the combination of the greater working memory AND less time
pressure. This chimes with the ‘narrow window hypothesis’ (Skehan, 2022), mentioned earlier, which
suggests that more is needed than simply greater working memory – other supportive conditions need
to be operative.
Another study that researched the way on-line planning interacts with other variables is by Wang
(2014). She explored correlations between proficiency test scores and narrative task performance under
three conditions: unplanned AND time pressured; pre-task planned BUT time pressured; unpressured,
that is, on-line planning. She reports that in the first condition, there was no correlation between
task performance and proficiency, that in the second, there was a moderate correlation.
Importantly, in the unpressured on-line condition there was a strong correlation. In other words,
greater proficiency does not seem to have an impact on performance when there is no planning sup-
port (pre- or during-); that it does help if there has been some pre-task planning; and that it makes its
greatest contribution when there is little time pressure, that is, there is on-line planning. Wang et al.
(2019) propose the Proficiency Mobilisation Hypothesis to capture this insight – that is, that the pro-
cessing conditions need to be right for proficiency to have an impact. Clearly, there are important
implications here for testing in that if there are underlying abilities (declarative knowledge), and
these are a target for testing, it seems that little time pressure is helpful for such abilities to manifest
themselves.
One final planning study is relevant to language testing. Wang (2014) also had a condition where one
group of participants had the opportunity for pre-task planning AND ALSO did the actual narrative task
under unpressured conditions. This produced the largest effect of all conditions in the study, raising
complexity, accuracy, and fluency, and doing this with greater effect sizes than any other separate con-
dition. This is consistent with the Conceptualiser–Formulator Balance principle (Wang et al., 2019): pro-
viding speakers with the opportunity to prepare ideas and organisation (Conceptualisation) AND the
opportunity to produce language effectively (Formulation). In other words, something to say, and the
means to say it.
It is clear, then, that the studies on task conditions, certainly planning, clarify how task perform-
ance can be influenced. This, in turn, has implications for the details of how testing takes place. Small
changes may have an impact on performance, suggesting that standardisation of these influences may
be important, or at least, that careful consideration is required if comparisons are made between dif-
ferent testing contexts. But equally importantly, the findings also clarify how Ability for Use is import-
ant in understanding test performance, as well as vital when one is designing a range of tests whose
function is to sample behaviour as the basis for generalisation to real world performance.

4.2 Task characteristics

Research into the impact of task characteristics on L2 performance has been central to the task field
since its beginning. As far as testing is concerned, there is the fundamental issue that if tasks are not
neutral data elicitation devices, comparing test performances when different tasks are involved
becomes significantly more difficult. On the basis of current task research, a range of generalisations
regarding task characteristic effects are now available. The information type underlying a task is
important: tasks based on concrete, familiar information tend to raise accuracy and fluency, whereas
those based on unfamiliar and abstract information tend to raise complexity (Skehan & Foster, 2008).
Tasks based on a tight structure (Skehan & Foster, 1999; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008) tend to raise accur-
acy, fluency, and, sometimes, complexity. Operations on the data within a task have also been shown to
be important. Transformation of information, or integration of different aspects of information (e.g.
need to combine background and foreground information in a narrative (Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005))
have been shown to increase complexity.
There have also been claims deriving from the Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2015), which
argues that resource-directing variables (reasoning demands, time perspective, number of elements
and so on) raise accuracy AND complexity. The evidence, particularly as reported in meta-analyses

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 10 Peter Skehan

(Malicka & Sasayama, 2017) is mixed, certainly to support the claim that these resource-directing fac-
tors will JOINTLY raise complexity and accuracy. There is more basis for the claim that one area will be
raised, such as reasoning demands raising complexity and sometimes lexis; with time perspective that
there-and-then tasks raise complexity but lower fluency (Wang & Skehan, 2014). More broadly, other
task features, not particularly theory-linked, tend to have consistent influences. Greater lexical
demands can slightly reduce the level of fluency (Wang & Skehan, 2014). More negotiable tasks,
where the speaker is not bound by particular input or task requirements, but can choose how to
address a task, tend to lead to more complex language. Finally, dialogic tasks, if there is engagement
between participants, can raise complexity and fluency, and sometimes accuracy (Skehan & Foster,
1997).
The amount of research activity with task characteristics has been considerable, but does contrast
with the research on task conditions. There, we may not have as wide a range of results, but there is
greater consistency and greater effect sizes within narrower areas (Skehan, 2016). With task character-
istics, there is a greater range of results, but the level of consistency has not been so great, and the effect
sizes have been smaller. Norris (personal communication) argues that this is likely connected with
inconsistencies in the operationalisation of causal variables across studies, rendering interpretations
of results very difficult if not impossible. Of course, it is the nature of tasks that they can be interpreted
differently by different participants, and so this unpredictability may contribute to the relative lack of
clear and consistent generalisations (Bachman, 2002).
There is obviously massive scope for additional research, and such research will contribute to a
clearer picture with task effects. But two observations are worth making in relation to tasks and testing.
The first concerns the potential non-neutrality of tasks as data elicitation devices. I would argue that,
on the basis of task research, task conditions need to be taken very seriously when one is judging com-
parability of test task results. Regarding tasks themselves, however, it is possible that the impact of par-
ticular tasks being chosen may not be as influential as perhaps has been previously thought (by me,
amongst others!). The second point is that while professional test developers may have not conducted
much direct task research themselves, (though there are some major contributions, e.g. Galaczi, 2006;
Nitta & Nakatsuhara, 2014), they are not unaware of the sorts of influences that have been discussed in
this section. Salisbury (2010), for example, explored how expert test developers routinely consider the
strengths and limitations of different test task types and of different test conditions. In many ways,
the expertise that they have developed, by whatever means, seems to parallel (and anticipate) some
of the findings from task research itself.

4.3 Task research and the measurement of performance

Task researchers obsess about complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Each of these performance
areas are measured separately, carefully, and in detail. Testers do not use such detailed measurements,
preferring to rely on carefully developed rating scales, used by trained raters, often with a distinction
between general ratings, and more precise analytic ratings – for example, range, vocabulary, accuracy,
and fluency. So, there is quite a degree of convergence between these two areas (as well as some reser-
vations – Fulcher (2015), for example, questioning the strength of the relationship between isolated
CALF measures and L2 language proficiency). O’Grady (2023) also draws attention, within a testing
context, to the importance of halo effects, where ratings of one analytic dimension spill over in their
influence to the other dimensions. The central point, however, is that the two areas can contribute to
one another. Additional areas used in testing, such as task fulfilment and interaction, might be prof-
itably used by task researchers. But worth discussing here is the way the detailed measures used by task
researchers might generate insights into what descriptive elements might be included in rating scales.
It will then be an empirical issue as to how these insights might contribute to greater effectiveness (or
not!) in how judgements are made about speaker competence in actual tests.
Regarding complexity, task researchers typically rely on measures of subordination (such as clauses
per AS-unit), or the number of words per clause. Interestingly, these two measures do not produce

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Language Teaching 11

strong inter-correlations (Inoue, 2016; Skehan, 2018). In view of this, task researchers have explored
which of these measures of structural complexity are affected by which independent variables. Pre-task
planning and narrative tasks raise both subordination and words-per-clause measures (Skehan, 2018).
Structured tasks, and there-and-then time perspective raise subordination only. Interestingly, non-
native speakerness (vs native), and lower proficiency (Skehan, 2018) raise words-per-clause! This
connects with a suggestion (Pang & Skehan, 2021) that there may be a tension between what is
termed a ‘discourse’ oriented style (higher subordination) and a clause-oriented style (higher
words-per-clause), with the former also correlated with greater speed, less pausing and less repair
and the latter correlated with lower speed and more pausing and repair. These results might have
implications for the descriptors of the steps in a rating scale: there may not be only one dimension
of complexity, in this regard.
Two other areas, accuracy and lexis, give slightly contrasting results based on task research. With
accuracy, there are various potential measures, each with different emphases (errors per 100 words,
error-free clauses, error gravity (Foster & Wigglesworth, 2016), error linked to length of clause).
Overall, the particular choice of measure does not seem to matter. All measures correlate fairly highly
and so it seems that whatever decision one makes, the overall assessment of accuracy is pretty much
the same. The implication is that task measurement research does not have that much to offer lan-
guage testing accuracy rating scale construction.
The situation is a little different with lexis. Different aspects of lexical use in speaking have been
used in task work, with a major contrast between lexical diversity and lexical sophistication. Lexical
diversity captures the extent to which speakers tend to recycle the same words during performance,
or not. Lexical sophistication uses an external criterion, usually word frequency, to establish how
many ‘sophisticated’ (usually low frequency) words are used. Interestingly, these two measures do
not correlate particularly highly and seem to reflect different processes (Skehan, 2009, 2018). There
is also evidence that lexical diversity shows a style effect, whereas lexical sophistication is less
influenced by style and is more task dependent. It has also been proposed that lexical diversity is
Formulator-linked, whereas lexical sophistication is Conceptualiser-linked (Skehan, 2018). In any
case, these findings suggest that ratings of vocabulary use might attempt to distinguish between
these two measures. Even so, there has to be a sense of realism as to the number of operations raters
can make within the time constraints they have (O’Grady, 2023) – this is more of an implication for
research, than immediate practicality.
The remaining component of CALF, fluency, is the most intriguing of all, and arguably the most
complex. The measures used in task research have consistently suggested subdimensions of in this
area, including speed, breakdown (silent pauses), retrievable disruption (filled pauses), and repair.
Task research has also brought out the importance of place of disruption, with pausing at clause
boundaries being more similar to native speaker dysfluency, and within-clause pausing being less
native-like (bearing in mind that native speakers, too, are often dysfluent) (Skehan, 2009). So, there
is immediate relevance to testing – the different sub-dimensions may each need some mention in
scales that might be used in testing, though perhaps worth doing only in contexts where fluency is
of central importance.
Two additional points are worth making. It could be argued that fluency is the area where already
there has been most cross-fertilisation between task research and testing. Tavakoli et al. (2020), for
example, has shown how task-based measures make important contributions, with such measures
helping to distinguish between CEFR levels up to B2, but then proving less effective in separating
B2 from C-level L2 speakers. The other point, touched on earlier, is the importance of style. Some
aspects of fluency (filled and unfilled pauses, repair) show considerable cross-task consistency,
while speed does not do so as much. These results suggest that there may be characteristic approaches
to fluency, irrespective of task, with features of performance such as pausing more a characteristic of
the person than the level of proficiency. There are limitations, in other words, on what tasks (and tests)
can do to separate out test-takers in aspects of fluency.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 12 Peter Skehan

5. Towards a framework for testing speaking

We can now recapitulate the earlier sections, before going on to propose a general framework for the
testing of speaking.

• Tasks and task conditions do influence performance (more consistently with the latter than the
former, perhaps), and so a test performance, and rating, might be partly the result of the specific
tasks and conditions used in a particular assessment.
• Broadly the influences from tasks and task conditions may be different for Conceptualiser and
Formulator stages of L2 speaking, and this may have relevance for test-task difficulty. This
may be important for sampling, calibrating difficulty, and generalising test results to real-world
performance.
• L2 speakers have to manage resources/knowledge sources/competences/lexicons where these are
limited in nature. How they manage such limitations has a huge potential influence on perform-
ance. Ability for Use needs to be a major consideration in testing.
• Task measurement research can provide insights for testing, particularly relevant to analytic rat-
ing scale construction.

These points are the background to the development of a framework for the testing L2 speaking, as
shown in Figure 2.
Starting at the right-hand side, and based on the Levelt model (Kormos, 2006), we have the three
major knowledge sources that underpin performance: background knowledge, the L2 mental lexicon,
and declarative knowledge of the L2. The only relevant finding from the task research section is the
correlation between a conventional proficiency test and measured task performance (Wang et al.,
2019). This correlation is higher when there is planning, whether pre-task or on-line, but particularly
with on-line planning, that is, little time pressure. The finding suggests that this task condition can
more directly tap particular knowledge sources, most likely L2 declarative knowledge, which is
more accessible when more time is available. One wonders whether other test-task formats might

Figure 2. A general framework for testing speaking

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Language Teaching 13

catalyse the prominence of the other knowledge sources (e.g. specialist expertise and background
knowledge). If we believe that particular underlying knowledge sources are important, then exploring
how to identify their specific contribution may be very useful in a testing context for both general as
well as specific-purpose testing.
In central place in the framework of Figure 2 is Ability for Use, and this is shown as comprising
both the major stages of speaking, and also the other, speaker-linked attributes and strategies, espe-
cially metacognition. The first of these suggests that variation in how the stages of speaking are
handled is important, and varies between people. The most relevant finding from previous discussion
is Wang (2014) who reports that a combination of pre-task planning and on-line planning produces
the greatest impact, across the performance dimensions (complexity, accuracy, lexis, and fluency).
Conceptualiser processes (from pre-task planning) give content and ideas (complexity and lexis),
and Formulator processes (from on-line planning) give effective means to produce actual language
(particularly accuracy and fluency). Beyond this, pre-task planning, if associated with macro-planning,
can give greater range to pre-verbal messages and this can sustain Formulator operations for several
speaking ‘turns’. There are also findings on the (limited) effects of working memory size – they
exist, but may require supportive circumstances to manifest themselves. Working memory differences
do not make much of a difference in the hurly-burly of normal speaking.
The remaining components of Ability for Use are supported by a qualitative study of planning
(Pang & Skehan, 2014). Planning opportunities do not always occur, of course, but data from this
type of study provides a window into the processes of L2 speaking. What emerges clearly from the
retrospective reports is a picture not of ‘passive’ communicators’, labouring away at transmitting mes-
sages, but rather speakers who can show considerable self-awareness, and management of their lin-
guistic (and other) resources. These findings suggest that a significant influence on spoken
language is the decisions that are made by speakers as they try to relate the resources they possess
to the task they have to do. Strategies, that is, can often trump resources, or lack thereof. If one is look-
ing for the basis for making generalisations from test information to real-world performance, then
drawing on these abilities in a testing format is vital – Ability for Use is likely to transfer across con-
texts just as dependably as underlying knowledge.
Spoken performance also depends, obviously, on the speaking task that is involved (and see Weir
(2005) on his analysis of ‘task’ within context validity). It is here, perhaps, that task research speaks
most directly in its implications for testing. More theoretically, there is the point that task difficulty
may vary independently for Conceptualiser and Formulator stages in speaking: what makes a task dif-
ficult at the first of these stages may be different to what makes tasks difficult for the second, and so an
overall, one-dimensional idea of task difficulty may be difficult to defend. More empirically, we have
seen a range of generalisations emerge from task research, regarding task characteristics and task con-
ditions, and this too falls nicely into the frame provided by the Conceptualiser–Formulator distinction
(effects of information type and operations, task conditions, and so on). Consequently, the perform-
ance that results may be based on these task factors, not simply the resources and abilities of the
second language speaker. The findings suggest that tasks and the conditions in which they are com-
pleted are, as mentioned earlier, not neutral in their impact, and this needs to be considered in com-
paring test results, generalising from test results to real-world performances, and designing test
batteries to obtain a wide-ranging sample of language.
Performance measures, the next stage in Figure 2, are important in assessing that performance, and
here, too, task research has contributions to make. First, detailed task measurement may be suggestive
about aspects of performance that could be relevant in test ratings. The two measures in each of
structural and lexical complexity are examples of this, since while each pair focusses within the
same area, they do not correlate with one another, and seem to tap different aspects of the dimension
concerned. These findings are suggestive of useful cross-fertilisation of ideas between task research and
language testing. Second, there are indications of style – for example, with things like fluency,
especially pausing and repair – which may suggest that aspects of performance are not task-mediated
but person-mediated.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 14 Peter Skehan

6. Implications and conclusions

In summing up, two qualifications are important. The first, already touched on, is the relevance of task
research for testing. This point comes from the way some task-based results have not been replicated in
some testing-oriented studies. This is important, and we have to await further research to see how
strong this limitation might be. There is, though, as mentioned earlier, the point that if testing contexts
themselves introduce new constraints on performance, this may be a problem for testing, just as much
as for potential for task application. The second qualification, also touched on already, but worth
restating, is that the discussion has been framed around task research findings, as though these find-
ings are startlingly new. Yet, many of the claims that are being made are familiar to test developers.
They may not be grounded in task research results, but they are the result of very considerable experi-
ence in thinking about good test-tasks.
The major point from this concluding section, though, is the issue of generalisation. Testing is neces-
sarily done in controlled circumstances, and with a degree of time pressure that constrains breadth and
extent of sampling. Yet, test information is required to overcome these limitations and to give us infor-
mation about how people will perform beyond the test (Weir, 2005). So, a central testing challenge is to
obtain information as efficiently as possible to enable such generalisations to be made, whether to more
specific target situations, or to broader contexts of use. As Figure 2 indicates, in the area of testing speak-
ing, there are ‘a lot of moving parts’ that complicate this challenge. Clearly, underlying knowledge sources
are important (as in every other model), but so are Ability for Use, task characteristics and task condi-
tions. The sampling implications are very important. All these stages are vital in providing the framework
to elicit a systematic coverage of speaking abilities. The consequence of this is simply that, if generalisation
to real world performance is the goal, it is not enough to sample underlying competences. The capacity to
use these resources also becomes a vital area to sample, and the point of the present article is to offer some
structure, based on task research, for the ways these other, performance-oriented factors, can play a role in
language testing. Of course, there is much more to the testing of speaking than simply a task-research
based perspective. It is clear, though, that task research can make an important contribution to such test-
ing, and it is to be hoped that this plenary has contributed to this.
Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank Gavin Bui, John Norris, Stefan O’Grady, Graeme Porte, and three
anonymous reviewers who have strengthened this written version of the plenary considerably. Thanks are also due to the
Language Testing Research Colloquium organisation, whose invitation was the stimulus for this work.

References
Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). The relationship between working memory capacity and L2 oral performance under task-based care-
ful online planning condition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 165–175. doi:10.1002/tesq.8
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 453–476.
doi:10.1191/0265532202lt240oa.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
Bui, G., Skehan, P., & Wang, Z. (2019). Task condition effects on advanced level foreign language performance. In P. Malovrh
& A. Benati (Eds.), Handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 219–238). Wiley. doi:10.1002/
9781119261650.ch12
Bui, H. Y. G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning,
and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance. (pp. 63–94). John Benjamins.
doi:10.1075/tblt.5.03gav
Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 333–
342). Newbury House.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.
Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. doi:10.1093/applin/i.1.1.
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “Speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1–24.
doi:10.1093/applin/13.1.1.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral per-
formance. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509. doi:10.1093/applin/amp042

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Language Teaching 15

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effect of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.),
Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–192). John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18(3), 299–324. doi:10.1017/s0272263100015047
Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause
ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 98–116. doi:10.1017/s0267190515000082
Fulcher, G. (2015). Re-examining language testing: A philosophical and social inquiry. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315695518
Galaczi, E. B. (2006). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination.
Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119. doi:10.1080/15434300801934702
Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Llanes, M. (2009). Manipulating task complexity across task types and its influence on learners.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47(3), 367–395. doi:10.1515/iral.2009.016.
Hulstijn, J. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/
lllt.41
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin
Books.
Inoue, C. (2016). A comparative study of the variables used to measure syntactic complexity and accuracy in task-based
research. The Language Learning Journal, 1(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/09571736.2015.1130079.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum. doi:10.4324/9780203763964
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge University Press.
Luo, S. (2008). Re-examining factors that affect task difficulty in TBLA [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation]. Chinese University
of Hong Kong.
Malicka, A., & Sasayama, S. (April 17th-19th, 2017). The importance of learning from the accumulated knowledge: Findings
from a research synthesis on task complexity. Paper presented at the 7th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based
Language Teaching, Barcelona, Spain.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 20(1), 52–83. doi:10.1017/S0272263198001041.
Nitta, R., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multi-faceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test
performance. Language Testing, 31(2), 147–175. doi:10.1177/0265532213514401
Norris, J. (2018). Task-based language assessment: Aligning designs with intended uses and consequences. JLTA Journal,
21(1), 3–20. doi:10.20622/jltajournal.21.0_3
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., & Yoshioka, J. K. (1998). Designing second language performance assessments.
University of Hawai‘i Press.
O’Grady, S. (2019). The impact of pre-task planning on speaking test performance for English medium university admission.
Language Testing, 36(4), 505–526. doi:10.1177/0265532219826604
O’Grady, S. (2023). Halo effects in rating data: Assessing speech fluency. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(1).
10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100048.
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In
P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance. (pp. 95–128). John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tblt.5.04pan
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2021). Performance profiles on second language speaking tasks. Modern Language Journal, 105(1),
371–390. doi:10.1111/modl.12699
Purpura, J. (2016). Assessing Meaning. In E. Shohamy, & L. Or (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education:
Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (pp. 33–61). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/
978-3-319-02326-7_1-1
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task
sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 87–122). John Benjamins.
doi:10.1075/tblt.8.04rob
Salisbury, K. (2010). The Edge of Expertise? Towards an understanding of listening test item writing as professional practice.
[Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation]. King’s College, London.
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Research pedagogic tasks:
Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 167–185). Longman. doi:10.1017/9781108955638.035
Skehan, P. (2009). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In B. Richards, H.
Daller, D. D. Malvern, & P. Meara (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition:The interface between
theory and application (pp. 107–124). Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230242258_7
Skehan, P. (Ed.) (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tblt.5
Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks vs. conditions: Two perspectives on task research and its implications for pedagogy. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 34–49. doi:10.1017/s0267190515000100
Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, and assessment. Routledge. doi:10.4324/
9781315629766

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 16 Peter Skehan

Skehan, P. (2022). Working memory and second language speaking tasks. In J. W. Schwieter, & Z. Wen (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of working memory and language (pp. 635–655). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
9781108955638.035
Skehan, 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), 185–211. doi:10.1177/136216889700100302
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language
Learning, 49(1), 93–120. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00071
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the
Ealing research. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy, and fluency
in second language use, learning, and teaching (pp. 207–226). University of Brussels Press.
Skehan, P., & Luo, S. (2020). Developing a task-based approach to assessment in an Asian context. System, 90(1), 1–14.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102223.
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner out-
put. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x
Tavakoli, P., Nakatsuhara, F., & Hunter, A.-M. (2020). Aspects of fluency across assessed levels of speaking proficiency.
Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 169–191. doi:10.1111/modl.12620
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task per-
formance in a second language (pp. 239–276). John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition
conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–62). John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/
tblt.5.02wan
Wang, Z., & Skehan, P. (2014). Task structure, time perspective and lexical demands during video-based narrative retellings.
In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 155–186). John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tblt.5.02wan
Wang, Z., Skehan, P., & Chen, G. (2019). The effects of hybrid on-line planning and L2 proficiency on video-based speaking
task performance. Journal of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 53–80. doi:10.1558/isla.37398.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/
9780230514577
Wen, Z. (2009). Effects of working memory capacity on L2-based speech planning and performance [Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation]. Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1988). The Collins COBUILD English course: Level 1. Collins.
Xi, X., Norris, J. M., Ockey, G. J., Fulcher, G., & Purpura, J. (2021). Assessing academic speaking. In X. Xi, & J. M. Norris
(Eds.), Assessing academic English for higher education admissions (pp. 152–199). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351142403.

Peter Skehan is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Education, University College London. He has taught at
universities in the U.K., Hong Kong, and New Zealand. His main interests are second language acquisition, particularly task-
based instruction, and also foreign language aptitude, as well, earlier in his career, in language testing. He has published
Individual differences in second language learning (Arnold, 1989); A cognitive approach to language learning (OUP, 1998),
and Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, and assessment (Routledge, 2018), as well as edited collections
such as, most recently, Language aptitude: Theory and practice (with Edward Wen and Richard Sparks: CUP, 2023). He has
also published research articles on second language task-based performance, exploring issues such as the effects of pre-task
planning, task characteristics, such as task structure, and post-task conditions. More theoretically, he has argued for the rele-
vance of a Limited Capacity Approach to second language task-based performance.

Cite this article: Skehan, P. (2023). Linking second language speaking task performance and language testing. Language
Teaching 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000344 Published online by Cambridge University Press