1887
Volume 34, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Previous task repetition studies have largely overlooked the second language learners’ development of linguistic knowledge as well as written accuracy. Furthermore, sufficient attention has not been paid to the role of written corrective feedback (WCF) in task repetition to reinforce attention to form. Moreover, studies exploring task repetition effects on learners with different prior knowledge of the target structure are rare. This study attempted to bridge these lacunas. Seventy-nine upper-intermediate learners in Iran were divided into four groups: task repetition with no feedback (TR), task repetition with metalinguistic feedback (TR+M), task repetition with direct feedback (TR+D), and task repetition with mixed direct metalinguistic feedback (TR+DM). All groups performed an error correction test that measured explicit knowledge, an elicited imitation test that tapped automatized explicit knowledge, and a picture-cued written production test that measured written accuracy. Participants performed a dictogloss task and received WCF before repeating the same task. Subsequently, they performed another dictogloss task with different content. Results revealed that the +Prior Knowledge learners in the TR+DM group gained explicit knowledge and proved slightly better than the TR+D regarding written accuracy. None of the groups, however, could develop automatized explicit knowledge.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.19054.khe
2021-12-15
2022-01-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmadian, M., & Tavakoli, M.
    (2011) The effects of simultaneous use of careful on-line planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35–59. doi:  10.1177/1362168810383329
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329 [Google Scholar]
  2. Azkarai, A., Garcia Mayo, M. P., & Oliver, R.
    (2020) The effect of task repetition on the patterns of interaction of ESL children. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 171(1), 90–112. doi:  10.1075/itl.17034.azk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.17034.azk [Google Scholar]
  3. Bitchener, J.
    (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–124. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
    (2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431. doi:  10.1177/1362168808089924
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2010) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bygate, M.
    (2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. InM. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.23–48). Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2018) Introduction. InM. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp.1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.intro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.intro [Google Scholar]
  8. Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (1999) The grammar book. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dekeyser, R. M.
    (1998) Beyond focus on form, cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. InC. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DeKeyser, R. M.
    (2007) Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667275
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275 [Google Scholar]
  11. Diab, N. M.
    (2015) Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter?Assessing Writing, 24, 16–34. doi:  10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, N. C.
    (2011) Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. InC. Sanz, & R. Leow (Eds.), Implicit, explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, knowledge in SLA & bilingualism (pp.35–47). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172. doi:  10.1017/S0272263105050096
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246. doi:  10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2009.00231.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x [Google Scholar]
  16. (2015) Understanding second language acquisition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (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]
  18. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H.
    (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M.
    (2013) Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B.
    (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184. doi:  10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00039‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  21. Fukuta, J.
    (2016) Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 3, 321–340. doi:  10.1177/1362168815570142
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815570142 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gass, S. M.
    (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [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(4), 549–581. doi:  10.1111/0023‑8333.00102
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hendrickson, J. M.
    (1980) The treatment of error in written work. The Modern Language Journal, 64(2), 216–221. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1980.tb05188.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1980.tb05188.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S.
    (1999) Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452. doi:  10.1017/S0272263199003034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199003034 [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson, M. D.
    (2017) Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jung, S.
    (2013) The effect of task repetition and corrective feedback in L2 writing: A pilot study. MSU Working Papers in SLS, 4, 24–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kellogg, R.
    (1996) A model of working memory in writing. InC. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp.57–71). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Khezrlou, S.
    (2019a) 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]
  30. (2019b) 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]
  31. (2020a) Training planning in second language narrative writing. ELT Journal, 74(1), 49–62. doi:  10.1093/elt/ccz050
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz050 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2020b) The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3(1), 31–54. doi:  10.1075/jsls.19025.khe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe [Google Scholar]
  33. (2021a) Explicit instruction through task repetition: Effects on explicit and implicit knowledge development. Language Awareness, 30(1), 62–83. doi:  10.1080/09658416.2020.1866590
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1866590 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2021b) Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 568–580. 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. Li, S.
    (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00561.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Li, S., & Roshan, S.
    (2019) The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 1–15. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003 [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. doi:  10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02
    https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02 [Google Scholar]
  39. McDonough, K., & Fulga, A.
    (2015) The detection and primed production of novel constructions. Language Learning, 65, 326–357. doi:  10.1111/lang.12103
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12103 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mehrang, F.
    (2016) The effect of task structure, task repetition, and reformulation on foreign language written performance. Unpublished doctoral thesis, the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Nguyen, B. T. T., & Newton, J.
    (2020) Learner proficiency and EFL learning through task rehearsal and performance. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 588–615. doi:  10.1177/1362168818819021
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818819021 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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. 10.1075/tblt.7.05nit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.05nit [Google Scholar]
  43. Patanasorn, C.
    (2010) Effect of procedural content and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Northern Arizona University, Arizona, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
    (2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. 10.1111/lang.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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(4), 227–303. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00046‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sadeghi, K., Khezrlou, S., & Modirkhameneh, S.
    (2017) CALLing Iranian learners of L2 English: Effect of gloss type on lexical retention and academic reading performance under different learning conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 66–86. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9817.12088
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12088 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sheen, Y.
    (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283. doi:  10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Sheppard, C.
    (2006) The effects of instruction directed at the gaps second language learners noticed in their oral production. Unpublished doctoral thesis, the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 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]
  50. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R.
    (2013) The comparative effect of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 286–306. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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), 103–131. doi:  10.1111/lang.12029
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 [Google Scholar]
  52. 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. doi:  10.1111/modl.12212
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212 [Google Scholar]
  53. Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R.
    (2017) The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67(4), 747–790. doi:  10.1111/lang.12241
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12241 [Google Scholar]
  54. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (2008) Lexical learning through a multitask activity: The role of repetition. InT. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp.119–132). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690371‑009
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690371-009 [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F.
    (2008) The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. doi:  10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
    https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00674.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [Google Scholar]
  57. 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. doi:  10.1177/1362168815609616
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609616 [Google Scholar]
  58. Williams, J.
    (2012) The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.19054.khe
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.19054.khe
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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