Using trade-off hypothesis theory to explain differences between practising English alone and engaging in real-time communication
Research Article
Open Access
CC BY

Using trade-off hypothesis theory to explain differences between practising English alone and engaging in real-time communication

Yang Yuyao 1*
1 The University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, The United Kingdom
*Corresponding author: 17832551567@163.com
Published on 26 October 2025
Journal Cover
JEEPS Vol.3 Issue 4
ISSN (Print): 3049-7256
ISSN (Online): 3049-7248
Download Cover

Abstract

This study adopts the trade-off hypothesis as its theoretical framework, focusing on three key dimensions: complexity, accuracy, and fluency. It examines the differences in EFL learners’ speaking performance between independent practice and real-time communication. The findings show that learners tend to use more complex and accurate sentences during independent practice, as the absence of time pressure and interactive feedback allows greater cognitive resources for planning and self-monitoring. By contrast, in real-time communication, learners prioritise fluency to ensure smooth interaction, often simplifying sentence structures and sacrificing accuracy. This difference does not indicate insufficient ability but reflects strategic trade-offs under limited cognitive resources. The study argues that oral performance is context-dependent and should be understood as the speaker’s adaptation to the context, instead of a single-dimensional deficiency. Complexity and accuracy in independent practice reveal learners’ potential, while simplifications in real-time communication reveal their strategic choices in authentic interaction. These dynamics underscore the close link between language output and cognitive resource allocation, offering new insights into learner strengths and limitations. The implications of this study lie in two aspects. Firstly, it helps learners understand their performance across contexts, thereby enhancing their confidence and developing more effective learning strategies. Secondly, it provides insights for oral pedagogy, suggesting that teachers can balance complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task design.

Keywords:

EFL Learners, Trade-Off Hypothesis, Oral Practice, Speaking Performance

View PDF
Yuyao,Y. (2025). Using trade-off hypothesis theory to explain differences between practising English alone and engaging in real-time communication. Journal of Education and Educational Policy Studies,3(4),23-27.

References

[1]. Zhang, S. (2021). Exploring Trade-Off between Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in IELTS Speaking. Curric. Teach. Methodol., 4 (5), pp. 23-29.

[2]. Sample, E., & Michel, M. (2014). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 23-23.

[3]. Cendra, A. N., & Sulindra, E. (2022). SPEAKING ACCURACY, FLUENCY, AND BEYOND: INDONESIAN VOCATIONAL STUDENTS’VOICES. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 25(2), 379-394.

[4]. Koizumi, R., & In'nami, Y. (2024). Predicting functional adequacy from complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second-language picture-prompted speaking. System, 120, 103208.

[5]. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev., 63 (2), p. 81.

[6]. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press.

[7]. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of communication disorders, 36(3), 189-208.

[8]. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Appl. Linguist., 17 (1), pp. 38-62.

[9]. Ahmadian, M.J. (2012). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Lang. Teach. Res., 16 (1), pp. 129-149.

[10]. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre‐task planning and on‐line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.

[11]. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Appl. Linguist., 30 (4), pp. 461-473.

[12]. Tsang, A. (2025). The relationships between EFL learners’ anxiety in oral presentations, self-perceived pronunciation, and speaking proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 29(4), 1639-1659.

[13]. Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. Lang. Learn. J., 44 (4), pp. 381-400.

[14]. Yamaoka, K. (2013). Exploring the Trade-off Relationship Between Fluency and Accuracy Identifying the Key Factor that Determines this Relationship. LET Kansai Chapter Collected Papers, 14, 41-61.

[15]. Chehr Azad, M.H., Farrokhi, F., & Zohrabi, M. (2018). Corrective Feedback, Spoken Accuracy and Fluency, and the Trade-Off Hypothesis. Int. J. Instr., 11 (2), pp. 465-482.

[16]. Zondag, A. (2024). Student teachers’ experience with improvisation activities for spontaneous speech practice in English. Language Teaching Research, 28(6), 2190-2213.

[17]. Asratie, M. G., Wale, B. D., & Aylet, Y. T. (2023). Effects of using educational technology tools to enhance EFL students’ speaking performance. Education and Information Technologies, 28(8), 10031-10051.

[18]. KIZIL, A. Ş. (2024). Linguistic Dimensions of L2 Performance: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 23(4).

[19]. Skehan, P. (2024). Linking second language speaking task performance and language testing. Language Teaching, 57(4), 501-516.

[20]. Mora, J. C., Mora‐Plaza, I., & Bermejo Miranda, G. (2024). Speaking anxiety and task complexity effects on second language speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 292-315.

[21]. Xu, T. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2023). Effects of cognitive task complexity and online planning on second language learners’ argumentative writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1121994.

[22]. Jin, S. (2024). Speaking proficiency and affective effects in EFL: Vlogging as a social media‐integrated activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(2), 586-604.

References

[1]. Zhang, S. (2021). Exploring Trade-Off between Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in IELTS Speaking. Curric. Teach. Methodol., 4 (5), pp. 23-29.

[2]. Sample, E., & Michel, M. (2014). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 23-23.

[3]. Cendra, A. N., & Sulindra, E. (2022). SPEAKING ACCURACY, FLUENCY, AND BEYOND: INDONESIAN VOCATIONAL STUDENTS’VOICES. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 25(2), 379-394.

[4]. Koizumi, R., & In'nami, Y. (2024). Predicting functional adequacy from complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second-language picture-prompted speaking. System, 120, 103208.

[5]. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev., 63 (2), p. 81.

[6]. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press.

[7]. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of communication disorders, 36(3), 189-208.

[8]. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Appl. Linguist., 17 (1), pp. 38-62.

[9]. Ahmadian, M.J. (2012). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Lang. Teach. Res., 16 (1), pp. 129-149.

[10]. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre‐task planning and on‐line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.

[11]. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Appl. Linguist., 30 (4), pp. 461-473.

[12]. Tsang, A. (2025). The relationships between EFL learners’ anxiety in oral presentations, self-perceived pronunciation, and speaking proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 29(4), 1639-1659.

[13]. Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. Lang. Learn. J., 44 (4), pp. 381-400.

[14]. Yamaoka, K. (2013). Exploring the Trade-off Relationship Between Fluency and Accuracy Identifying the Key Factor that Determines this Relationship. LET Kansai Chapter Collected Papers, 14, 41-61.

[15]. Chehr Azad, M.H., Farrokhi, F., & Zohrabi, M. (2018). Corrective Feedback, Spoken Accuracy and Fluency, and the Trade-Off Hypothesis. Int. J. Instr., 11 (2), pp. 465-482.

[16]. Zondag, A. (2024). Student teachers’ experience with improvisation activities for spontaneous speech practice in English. Language Teaching Research, 28(6), 2190-2213.

[17]. Asratie, M. G., Wale, B. D., & Aylet, Y. T. (2023). Effects of using educational technology tools to enhance EFL students’ speaking performance. Education and Information Technologies, 28(8), 10031-10051.

[18]. KIZIL, A. Ş. (2024). Linguistic Dimensions of L2 Performance: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 23(4).

[19]. Skehan, P. (2024). Linking second language speaking task performance and language testing. Language Teaching, 57(4), 501-516.

[20]. Mora, J. C., Mora‐Plaza, I., & Bermejo Miranda, G. (2024). Speaking anxiety and task complexity effects on second language speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 292-315.

[21]. Xu, T. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2023). Effects of cognitive task complexity and online planning on second language learners’ argumentative writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1121994.

[22]. Jin, S. (2024). Speaking proficiency and affective effects in EFL: Vlogging as a social media‐integrated activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(2), 586-604.

Cite this article

Yuyao,Y. (2025). Using trade-off hypothesis theory to explain differences between practising English alone and engaging in real-time communication. Journal of Education and Educational Policy Studies,3(4),23-27.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

About volume

Journal: Journal of Education and Educational Policy Studies

Volume number: Vol.3
Issue number: Issue 4
ISSN: 3049-7248(Print) / 3049-7256(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.

2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

For authors
For editors
For reviewers

Cookies are used by this site.
Copyright © 2024 EWA Publishing, its licensors, and contributors. All rights reserved, including text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.