Document Type : Research article


1 MA Graduate, Department of English Language, Faculty of the Humanities, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of English Language, Faculty of the Humanities, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran


The current study examined the impact of online planning and strategic planning in the context of task-based computer-assisted language learning (CALL) on Willingness to Communicate (WTC). Initially, the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) was administered to 120 intermediate female English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. Then, based on the OPT scale, 90 learners were chosen and divided into two experimental groups and a control group. The participants in the assigned groups were asked to complete the WTC questionnaire as the pretest. Following that, one of the experimental groups received CALL Online Planning and the other one received CALL Strategic Planning. In the Strategic Planning group, the learners wrote an essay each session on a given topic while being allowed to think of what they were going to write (content), and what language forms (words, grammar, etc.) they wanted to use. In the other experimental group, learners had time to think about the task performance during the task, but were instructed not to write down their plan. Conventional treatment was applied to the participants in the control group. After ten sessions, the learners in the three groups were given the WTC questionnaire as the posttest. The results of ANCOVA indicated that online planning and strategic planning had considerable impact on Iranian EFL learners’ WTC. Moreover, it was revealed that the effect of strategic planning was more significant compared to online planning on Iranian EFL learners’ WTC. The results promise implications for EFL teachers to incorporate online planning and strategic planning in the context of CALL-based TBLT (i.e., Task-Based Language Teaching) to enhance WTC.


  1. Aliakbari, M., Kamangar, M., & Khany, R. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English among Iranian EFL students. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 33-44.
  2. Alsied, S. M., & Pathan, M. M. (2013). The use of computer technology in EFL classroom: Advantages and implications. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 1(1), 44-51.
  3. Anwar, K., & Arifani, Y. (2016). Task based language teaching: Development of CALL. International Education Studies, 9(6), 168-183.
  4. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language-minority children. National Academy Press.
  5. Aydın, F. (2017). Willingness to communicate (WTC) among intermediate-level adult Turkish EFL learners: Underlying factors. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 5(3), 1-29.
  6. Broncano, B., & Ribeiro, M. (1999). The shape of the future: Computers and multimedia resources in the teaching of Portuguese as a foreign language and culture. ReCALL, 11(3), 13-24.
  7. Cao, Y. K. (2009). Understanding the notion of interdependence, and the dynamics of willingness to communicate [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Auckland]. ResearchSpace.
  8. Cao, Y. K., & Jiaotong, X. (2012). Willingness to communicate and communication quality in ESL classrooms. TESL Reporter, 45(1), 17-36.
  9. Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22(2), 190-209.
  10. Dellerman, P., Coirier, P., & Marchand, E. (1996). Planning and expertise in argumentative composition. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. V. D. Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 182-195). Amsterdam University Press.
  11. Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50-80.
  12. Egbert, J., Chao, C., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Computer-enhanced language learning environments: An overview. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 1-13). TESOL.
  13. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
  14. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 7(2), 209-224.
  15. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509.
  16. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-84.
  17. Farahani, A., & Meraji, S. R. (2011). Cognitive task complexity and L2 narrative writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 445-456.
  18. Gauvain, M. (2021). Developmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies. In A. M. Slater & P. C. Quinn (Eds.), Developmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (2 ed., pp. 89-102). Sage.
  19. Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 647-673.
  20. Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105-121.
  21. Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 6-44). International Reading Association.
  22. Hegelheimer, V., & Tower, D. (2004). Using CALL in the classroom: Analyzing student interactions in an authentic classroom. System, 32(2), 185-205.
  23. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2007). A comparative analysis of computer-supported learning models and guidelines. In F. M. M. Neto & F. U. Brasilerio (Eds.), Advances in computer- supported learning (pp. 1-20). Information Science Publishing.
  24. Johnson, M., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264-282.
  25. Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33(2), 277-292.
  26. Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 154-180.
  27. Liaw, M. L. (1998). Using electronic mail for English as a Foreign Language instruction. System, 26(3), 335-351.
  28. Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2019). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42.
  29. MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564-576.
  30. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 369-388.
  31. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clement, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52(3), 537-564.
  32. MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
  33. McCreesh, B. (1998). Integrating CALL into the vocabulary classroom. In S. Jager, J. Nerbonne, & A. V. Essen (Eds.), Language teaching and language technology (pp. 36-42). Swets & Zeiltinger.
  34. Meskill, C. (1999). Computers as tools for sociocollaborative language learning. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning (CALL): Media, design and applications (pp. 141-164). Swets & Zeitlinger.
  35. Meskill, C. (2005). Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 46-59.
  36. Mokhtari, H. (2013). Iranian EFL learners’ attitude towards CALL. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1630-1635.
  37. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Ditfurth, M. S.-v. (2010). Research on the use of technology in task-based language teaching. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching with technology (1 ed., pp. 17-40). Bloomsbury Academic.
  38. Nakakubo, T. (2011). The effects of planning on second language oral performance in Japanese: processes and production [Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa].
  39. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Prentice Hall.
  40. Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining “Task”. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 12-18.
  42. Oh, E., Lee, C. M., & Moon, Y. I. (2015). The contributions of planning, L2 linguistic knowledge and individual differences to L2 writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 12(2), 45-85.
  43. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers' text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 375-398.
  44. Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS program (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  45. Peterson, M. (2010). Task-based language teaching in network-based CALL: An analysis of research on learner interaction in synchronous CMC. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology (1st ed., pp. 41-62). Bloomsbury Academic.
  46. Polat, M. (2017). CALL in context: A brief historical and theoretical perspective. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 5(1), 17-23.
  47. Rahimpour, M., & Safarie, M. (2011). The effects of on-line and pre-task planning on descriptive writing of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 274-280.
  48. Riasati, M. J., & Noordin, N. (2011). Antecedents of willingness to communicate: A review of literature. Studies in Literature and Language, 3(2), 74-80.
  49. Riasati, M. J., & Rahimi, F. (2018). Situational and individual factors engendering willingness to speak English in foreign language classrooms. Cogent Education, 5(1).
  50. Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 557-573.
  51. Simuth, J., & Sarmany-Schuller, I. (2014). Cognitive style variable in e-learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1464-1467.
  52. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Edward Arnold.
  53. Skehan, P. (2007). Language instruction through tasks. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. 15, pp. 289-301). Springer.
  54. Soiferman, L. K., Boyd, K., & Straw, S. B. (2010). With what evidence are teachers employing evidence-based procedures in their writing classrooms? International Conference on Education, Symposium conducted at the International Conference of Education, Honolulu, Hi.
  55. Tavakoli, H., Lotfi, A., & Biria, R. (2019). Effects of CALL-mediated TBLT on self-efficacy for reading among Iranian university non-English major EFL students. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 7(26), 85-101.
  56. Thomas, M. (2011). Task-based language teaching and collaborative problem solving with second life: A case study of Japanese EFL learners. Proceeding at International Conference “ICT for Language Learning”. University of Central Lancashire (United Kingdom).
  57. Thomas, M. (2013). Task-based language teaching and CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 341-358). Continuum.
  58. Valadi, A., Rezaee, A., & Baharvand, P. (2015). The relationship between language learners’ willingness to communicate and their oral language proficiency with regard to gender differences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4, 147-153.
  59. van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kransch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. Continuum.
  60. Wang, Y. (2006). Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL, 18(2), 122-146.
  61. Wang, Y. (2008). Influence of planning on students' language performance in task-based language teaching. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 83-86.
  62. Weda, S., Atmowardoyo, H., Rahman, F., Said, M. M., & Sakti, A. (2021). Factors affecting students’ willingness to communicate in EFL classroom at higher institution in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 719-734.
  63. Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language production. [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University].
  64. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
  65. Xie, Q. (2011). Willingness to communicate in English among secondary school students in the rural Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom [Master's thesis, Auckland University of Technology].
  66. Yousefi, M., & Kasaian, S. A. (2014). Relationship between willingness to communicate and Iranian EFL learner’s speaking fluency and accuracy. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 2(6), 61-72.
  67. Yuan, B. (2001). The status of thematic verbs in the second language acquisition of Chinese: Against inevitability of thematic-verb raising in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(3), 248-272.