1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study explored whether the effects of task repetition in drawing learners’ attention to linguistic form could be reinforced through the provision of two types of unfocused direct written corrective feedback. Fifty-seven learners formed three conditions: (1) task repetition with no feedback (TR, control), (2) task repetition with error correction (TR+EC), and (3) task repetition with reformulation (TR+R). All groups repeated an identical writing narrative task but only the experimental groups received feedback after their initial task performance. All participants were then asked to complete a new task of the same type followed by a new task of a different type. Performance was gauged by multiple measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency. Results revealed the persistent superiority of the TR+EC condition on all measures of accuracy while the TR+R condition led to immediate written complexity improvement regarding subordination. Furthermore, both the TR+R and TR conditions resulted in delayed fluency gains.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe
2020-04-10
2020-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, R.
    (2003) L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347–376. 10.1191/1362168803lr127oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803lr127oa [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmadian, M. J., Mansouri, S. A., & Ghominejad, S.
    (2017) Language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of task repetition. ELT Journal, 71(4), 467–477. 10.1093/elt/ccx011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Allan, D.
    (2004) Oxford Placement Tests 2: Test pack. Oxford: Oxford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arroyo, D. C., & Yilmaz, Y.
    (2018) An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, 68(4), 1–31. 10.1111/lang.12300
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12300 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bitchener, J.
    (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2018) Direct versus indirect grammar feedback. InJ. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp.1–8). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
    (2010) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. 10.1093/applin/amp016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D.
    (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A.-M.
    (2019) Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 81, 1–13. 10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bygate, M.
    (2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language. InM. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and assessment (pp.23–48). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bygate, M., & Samuda, V.
    (2005) Integrative planning through the use of task- repetition. InR. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.05byg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.05byg [Google Scholar]
  12. Chandler, J.
    (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00038‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen, J.
    (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. 10.1037/0033‑2909.112.1.155
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 [Google Scholar]
  14. Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J.
    (2003) Lexical richness in spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. 10.1093/applin/24.2.197
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.197 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Jong, C. A. M., & Perfetti, C. A.
    (2011) Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533–568. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00620.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, R.
    (2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2009.00231.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x [Google Scholar]
  17. (2016) Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428. 10.1177/1362168816628627
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2019) Task preparedness. InZ. D. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honor of Peter Skehan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.13.02ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.02ell [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashimi, H.
    (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371. 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Frear, D.
    (2012) The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
  21. Frear, D., & Chiu, Y-H.
    (2015) The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. 10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fukuta, J.
    (2016) Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 3, 321–340. 10.1177/1362168815570142
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815570142 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernandez-Garcia, M.
    (1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00102
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hawkes, M. L.
    (2012) Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. English Language Teaching, 66, 327–336. 10.1093/elt/ccr059
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr059 [Google Scholar]
  25. Heaton, J.
    (1975) Beginning composition through pictures. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hsu, H-C.
    (2017) The combined effect of task repetition and post-task transcribing on L2 speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 172–187. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1255773
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1255773 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jung, Y-J., Kim, Y-J., & Murphy, J.
    (2017) The role of task repetition in learning word-stress patterns through auditory priming tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 319–346. 10.1017/S0272263117000031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000031 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kang, E. Y., & Han, Z.
    (2015) The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. 10.1111/modl.12189
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189 [Google Scholar]
  29. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H.
    (2018) The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kellogg, R.
    (1990) Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 327–342. 10.2307/1423213
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1423213 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1996) A model of working memory in writing. InC. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp.57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Khezrlou, S.
    (2019a) Form-focused instruction in CALL: What do learners think?RELC, 50(2), 235-251. doi:  10.1177/0033688217738820
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217738820 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2019b) Task repetition and corrective feedback: The role of feedback types and structure saliency. English Teaching and Learning, 43(2), 213-233. doi:  10.1007/s42321‑019‑00025‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00025-2 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2019c) Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765 [Google Scholar]
  35. Khezrlou, S., Ellis, R., & Sadeghi, K.
    (2017) Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System, 65, 104-116. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2017.01.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N.
    (2013) The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction?System, 41, 829–840. 10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D.
    (2017) Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167–196. 10.1017/S0272263116000085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000085 [Google Scholar]
  38. Manchón, R. M.
    (2014) The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing: Implications for theory, research and pedagogy. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 14, 13–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mehrang, F.
    (2016) The effect of task structure, task repetition, and reformulation on foreign language written performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
  40. Nitta, R., & Baba, K.
    (2014) Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. InH. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing (pp.107–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–78. 10.1093/applin/amp044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  42. Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S.
    (2001) Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00046‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sachs, R., & Polio, C.
    (2007) Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100. 10.1017/S0272263107070039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039 [Google Scholar]
  44. Semke, H. D.
    (1984) The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1984.tb01727.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Sheen, Y.
    (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–83. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Sheppard, C., & Ellis, R.
    (2018) The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated performance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. InM. Bygate (ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp.177–199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.07she
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.07she [Google Scholar]
  47. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R.
    (2013) The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  48. Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W.
    (2014) Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–31. 10.1111/lang.12029
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 [Google Scholar]
  49. Skehan, P.
    (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. 10.1093/applin/17.1.38
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  50. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2009) Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–32. 10.1093/applin/amp047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  52. (Ed.) (2014) Processing perspectives on task performance. London: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5 [Google Scholar]
  53. Stefanou, C., & Révész, A.
    (2015) Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282. 10.1111/modl.12212
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212 [Google Scholar]
  54. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (2002) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304. 10.1016/S0883‑0355(03)00006‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5 [Google Scholar]
  55. Thornbury, S.
    (1997) Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”. ELT Journal, 51, 326–335. 10.1093/elt/51.4.326
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.4.326 [Google Scholar]
  56. Van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rojlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P.
    (2016) Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 300–320. 10.1177/1362168815609616
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609616 [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F.
    (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00674.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Varnosfadrani, A., & Basturkmen, H.
    (2009) The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37, 82–98. 10.1016/j.system.2008.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.04.004 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CAF , error correction , reformulation , task repetition and written corrective feedback
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error