Home Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling

  • Sima Khezrlou

    Sima Khezrlou received her PhD in TESOL from Urmia University, Iran. Her research interests include instructed second language acquisition, form-focused instruction, task-based language teaching and CALL. In addition to a number of publications in these fields, her most recent studies include a co-authored article in System (2017, with Rod Ellis and Karim Sadeghi) and studies that appear in RELC (2019), English Teaching and Learning (2019), The Language Learning Journal (2019), ELT Journal (2020), Journal of Second Language Studies (2020) and Language Awareness (2021).

     ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 2, 2021
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 61 Issue 2

Abstract

This study expands upon research into task repetition effects by exploring the effect of task modeling between the performances of the same oral narrative task and its extension to a new task. Seventy-one advanced beginner English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were divided into three groups: task repetition with oral modeling (TR + OM), task repetition with written modeling (TR + WM), and task repetition with no modeling (TR). All groups enacted another oral narrative task (a new task of the same type), three days apart. Participants’ oral narrative task performances were analyzed in terms of complexity, accuracy and fluency. Results revealed that TR + WM was more effective than the TR + OM, and both were significantly better than the control group in leading to subordination complexity in the repeated task and the new task. Whereas the percentage of error-free clauses remained unchanged over time, the accurate verb forms increased in TR + WM’s repeated task, but declined in the new task. Fluency in terms of articulation speed and mid-clause silent pauses was improved and maintained in the new task in all groups, with both the experimental groups particularly the TR + OM outperforming the TR regarding the significant reduction of repair in the repeated and new task performances. In conclusion, these significant developments induced by the modeling conditions speak to the strength of models in providing and extending linguistic features beyond learners’ current repertoires. Pedagogical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords: CAF; focus on form; task-based language teaching; task modeling; task repetition
Corresponding author: Sima Khezrlou, Independent Researcher, Urmia, Iran, E-mail:

About the author

Sima Khezrlou

Sima Khezrlou received her PhD in TESOL from Urmia University, Iran. Her research interests include instructed second language acquisition, form-focused instruction, task-based language teaching and CALL. In addition to a number of publications in these fields, her most recent studies include a co-authored article in System (2017, with Rod Ellis and Karim Sadeghi) and studies that appear in RELC (2019), English Teaching and Learning (2019), The Language Learning Journal (2019), ELT Journal (2020), Journal of Second Language Studies (2020) and Language Awareness (2021).

Appendix A

Waiting for a Bus Task

Appendix B

A Surprise Task

Appendix C

Script of the Task

One day three small boys called Bobby. Charles and Peter went to visit their friend in hospital. They waited a long time for a bus. When the bus arrived, it was nearly full. Suddenly, four big boys pushed in front of them and got on the bus. ‘We can’t all get on this bus. Get out of our way,’ one of the big boys said. ‘We were in the queue before you’, Bobby shouted. ‘We don’t care. You’ll have to wait for another bus’, another big boy answered. ‘Please let us get on the bus. We have to visit a friend in hospital’, Bobby said. The other big boy said, ‘you can visit him tomorrow.’ After half an hour, the next bus came and the three boys got on. On their way to the hospital, they saw the first bus half-way up a hill in front of them. ‘Look! There’s the other bus. It’s stopped up that hill. We’re going to pass it,’ Charles cried. ‘Can you see those four boys?’ Peter asked. ‘Now those four boys will have to wait a long time for another bus. Their bus has broken down. Let’s wave to them,’ Bobby laughed.

Table 5:

One-way ANOVA results for complexity.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Subordination Main task Between groups 0.15 2 0.07 0.62 0.53
Within groups 8.61 68 0.12
Total 8.77 70
Repeated task Between groups 5.73 2 2.86 16.05 0.00
Within groups 12.14 68 0.17
Total 17.87 70
New task Between groups 6.08 2 3.04 29.69 0.00
Within groups 6.96 68 0.10
Total 13.04 70
Length Main task Between groups 4.13 2 2.06 0.88 0.41
Within groups 159.63 68 2.34
Total 163.77 70
Repeated task Between groups 5.83 2 2.92 1.21 0.30
Within groups 164.04 68 2.41
Total 169.88 70
New task Between groups 3.85 2 1.92 1.03 0.35
Within groups 126.09 68 1.85
Total 129.94 70
Lcxical sophistication Main task Between groups 0.04 2 0.02 0.22 0.80
Within groups 6.10 68 0.09
Total 6.14 70
Repeated task Between groups 0.11 2 0.05 0.66 0.51
Within groups 5.76 68 0.08
Total 5.87 70
New task Between groups 0.16 2 0.08 0.81 0.44
Within groups 6.67 68 0.09
Total 6.83 70
Table 6:

Tukey test for complexity.

Dependent variable (I) groups (J) groups Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig. 95% confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
Subordination Main task TR + OM TR + WM −0.08 0.10 0.69 −0.32 0.16
TR 0.02 0.10 0.95 −0.22 0.27
TR TR + WM −0.11 0.10 0.53 −0.36 0.13
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM −0.34* 0.12 0.01 −0.62 −0.05
TR 0.36* 0.12 0.01 0.07 0.66
TR TR + WM −0.70* 0.12 0.00 −1.00 −0.40
New task TR + OM TR + WM −0.31* 0.09 0.00 −0.53 −0.09
TR 0.41* 0.09 0.00 0.18 0.63
TR TR + WM −0.72* 0.09 0.00 −0.95 −0.50
Length Main task TR + OM TR + WM 0.23 0.43 0.85 −0.81 1.28
TR 0.59 0.44 0.38 −0.48 1.66
TR TR + WM −0.35 0.45 0.71 −1.43 0.72
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM −0.30 0.44 0.77 −1.37 0.75
TR 0.40 0.45 0.64 −0.68 1.49
TR TR + WM −0.71 0.45 0.27 −1.81 0.38
New task TR + OM TR + WM −0.04 0.38 0.99 −0.98 0.88
TR 0.47 0.39 0.45 −0.47 1.43
TR TR + WM −0.52 0.40 0.39 −1.48 0.43
Lexical sophistication Main task TR + OM TR + WM −0.05 0.08 0.79 −0.26 0.14
TR −0.03 0.08 0.90 −0.24 0.17
TR TR + WM −0.01 0.08 0.97 −0.22 0.19
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM −0.08 0.08 0.59 −0.28 0.11
TR TR −0.08 0.08 0.58 −0.28 0.11
TR + WM 0.00 0.08 0.99 −0.20 0.20
New task TR + OM TR + WM −0.11 0.08 0.42 −0.32 0.10
TR −0.07 0.09 0.68 −0.29 0.14
TR TR + WM −0.03 0.09 0.92 −0.25 0.18

  1. *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

Table 7:

T-test results for complexity.

Paired differences T df Sig-(2-tailed)
Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean 95% confidence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
Subordination
TR + OM Main task-repeated task −0.36 0.57 0.11 −0.60 −0.12 −3.16 24 0.004
Main task-new task −0.35 0.59 0.11 −0.60 −0.10 −2.98 24 0.006
Repeated task-new task 0.01 0.18 0.03 −0.06 0.09 0.31 24 0.754
TR + WM Main task-repeated task −0.62 0.46 0.09 −0.82 −0.42 −6.59 23 0.00
Main task-new task −0.58 0.36 0.07 −0.74 −0.43 −7.88 23 0.00
Repeated task-new task 0.03 0.43 0.08 −0.14 0.22 0.41 23 0.68
TR Main task-repeated task −0.03 0.24 0.05 −0.13 0.07 −0.58 21 0.566
Main task-new task 0.02 0.29 0.06 −0.10 0.15 0.43 21 0.667
Repeated task-new task 0.05 0.17 0.03 −0.02 0.13 1.49 21 0.149
Length
TR + OM Main task-repeated task −0.04 1.27 0.25 −0.56 0.48 −0.15 24 0.87
Main task-new task 0.16 2.01 0.40 −0.67 0.99 0.39 24 0.69
Repeated task-new task 0.20 1.84 0.36 −0.56 0.96 0.54 24 0.59
TR + WM Main task-repeated task −0.58 1.50 0.30 −1.21 0.05 −1.90 23 0.07
Main task-new task −0.12 2.11 0.43 −1.01 0.76 −0.29 23 0.77
Repeated task-new task 0.45 1.97 0.40 −0.37 1.29 1.13 23 0.26
TR Main task-repeated task −0.22 1.02 0.21 −0.67 0.22 −1.04 21 0.30
Main task-new task 0.04 1.86 0.39 −0.78 0.87 0.11 21 0.91
Repeated task-new task 0.27 1.72 0.36 −0.49 1.03 0.74 21 0.46
Lexical sophistication
TR + OM Main task-repeated task 0.04 0.43 0.07 −0.13 0.22 0.48 24 0.63
Main task-new task 0.09 0.41 0.08 −0.07 0.26 1.13 24 0.26
Repeated task-new task 0.05 0.47 0.09 −0.14 0.24 0.55 24 0.58
TR + WM Main task-repeated task 0.01 0.43 0.08 −0.16 0.20 0.18 23 0.85
Main task-new task 0.03 0.52 0.10 −0.18 0.26 0.36 23 0.72
Repeated task-new task 0.02 0.54 0.11 −0.20 0.25 0.19 23 0.84
TR Main task-repeated task −0.00 0.35 0.07 −0.16 0.15 −0.05 21 0.95
Main task-new task 0.05 0.28 0.06 −0.07 0.18 0.91 21 0.36
Repeated task-new task 0.06 0.26 0.05 −0.05 0.17 1.07 21 0.29
Table 8:

One-way ANOVA results for accuracy.

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Error-free clauses Main task Between groups 0.00 2 0.00 0.37 0.68
Within groups 0.83 68 0.01
Total 0.84 70
Repeated task Between groups 0.00 2 0.00 0.18 0.83
Within groups 0.70 68 0.01
Total 0.70 70
New task Between groups 0.00 2 0.00 0.18 0.83
Within groups 0.83 68 0.01
Total 0.84 70
Accurate verb forms Main task Between groups 0.00 2 0.00 0.08 0.92
Within groups 2.46 68 0.03
Total 2.46 70
Repeated task Between groups 0.69 2 0.34 6.56 0.00
Within groups 3.60 68 0.05
Total 4.30 70
New task Between groups 0.01 2 0.00 0.21 0.80
Within groups 2.63 68 0.03
Total 2.64 70
Table 9:

Tukey test for accuracy.

Dependent variable (I) groups (J) groups Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig. 95% confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
Error-free clauses Main task TR + OM TR + WM 0.00 0.03 0.94 −0.06 0.08
TR −0.01 0.03 0.83 −0.09 0.05
TR TR + WM 0.02 0.03 0.66 −0.05 0.10
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM −0.00 0.02 0.99 −0.07 0.06
TR −0.01 0.02 0.83 −0.08 0.05
TR TR + WM 0.01 0.03 0.89 −0.05 0.08
New task TR + OM TR + WM −0.00 0.03 0.99 −0.08 0.07
TR −0.01 0.03 0.82 −0.09 0.05
TR TR + WM 0.01 0.03 0.89 −0.06 0.09
Accurate verb forms Main task TR + OM TR + WM 0.00 0.05 0.98 −0.12 0.13
TR −0.01 0.05 0.97 −0.14 0.12
TR TR + WM 0.02 0.05 0.91 −0.11 0.15
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM −0.15* 0.06 0.04 −0.31 −0.00
TR 0.08 0.06 0.45 −0.08 0.24
TR TR + WM −0.24* 0.06 0.00 −0.40 −0.07
New task TR + OM TR + WM 0.01 0.05 0.97 −0.12 0.14
TR 0.03 0.05 0.79 −0.10 0.17
TR TR + WM −0.02 0.05 0.90 −0.16 0.11

  1. *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 10:

T-test results for accuracy.

Paired differences t df Sig- (2-tailed)
Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean 95% confidence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
Error-free clauses
TR + OM Main task-repeated task −0.00 0.05 0.01 −0.03 0.01 −0.77 24 0.44
Main task-new task −0.00 0.05 0.01 −0.02 0.02 −0.10 24 0.92
Repeated task-new task 0.00 0.03 0.00 −0.00 0.02 1.10 24 0.28
TR + WM Main task-repeated task −0.02 0.05 0.01 −0.04 0.00 −1.97 23 0.06
Main task-new task −0.01 0.06 0.01 −0.04 0.01 −1.06 23 0.29
Repeated task-new task 0.00 0.04 0.00 −0.01 0.02 0.88 23 0.38
TR Main task-repeated task −0.00 0.05 0.01 −0.03 0.01 −0.67 21 0.51
Main task-new task −0.00 0.06 0.01 −0.03 0.02 −0.13 21 0.89
Repeated task-new task 0.00 0.04 0.00 −0.01 0.02 0.66 21 0.51
Accurate verb forms
TR + OM Main task-repeated task −0.08 0.30 0.06 −0.20 0.04 −1.31 24 0.20
Main task-new task −0.03 0.28 0.05 −0.15 0.07 −0.69 24 0.49
Repeated task-new task 0.04 0.29 0.05 −0.07 0.16 0.70 24 0.49
TR + WM Main task-repeated task −0.24 0.35 0.07 −0.39 −0.09 −3.44 23 0.002
Main task-new task −0.03 0.25 0.05 −0.14 0.07 −0.70 23 0.48
Repeated task-new task 0.21 0.33 0.06 0.07 0.35 3.13 23 0.005
TR Main task-repeated task 0.01 0.28 0.06 −0.11 0.13 0.23 21 0.81
Main task-new task 0.01 0.26 0.05 −0.10 0.12 0.19 21 0.85
Repeated task-new task −0.00 0.29 0.06 −0.13 0.12 −0.05 21 0.96
Table 11:

One-way ANOVA results for fluency.

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Words per minute Main task Between groups 0.41 2 0.20 0.19 0.82
Within groups 73.07 68 1.07
Total 73.48 70
Repeated task Between groups 27.94 2 13.97 8.74 0.00
Within groups 108.65 68 1.59
Total 136.60 70
New task Between groups 22.97 2 11.48 6.71 0.00
Within groups 116.39 68 1.71
Total 139.36 70
MCFP Main task Between groups 10.34 2 5.17 0.91 0.40
Within groups 383.20 68 5.63
Total 393.54 70
Repeated task Between groups 1.70 2 0.85 0.19 0.82
Within groups 300.32 68 4.41
Total 302.03 70
New task Between groups 4.77 2 2.38 0.49 0.61
Within groups 329.17 68 4.84
Total 333.94 70
MCSP Main task Between groups 1.31 2 0.65 0.16 0.84
Within groups 271.71 68 3.99
Total 273.02 70
Repeated task Between groups 3.11 2 1.55 0.68 0.50
Within groups 154.99 68 2.27
Total 158.10 70
New task Between groups 2.91 2 1.45 0.59 0.55
Within groups 166.20 68 2.44
Total 169.12 70
ECFP Main task Between groups 2.08 2 1.04 0.67 0.51
Within groups 104.73 68 1.54
Total 106.81 70
Repeated task Between groups 1.31 2 0.65 0.51 0.60
Within groups 87.21 68 1.28
Total 88.53 70
New task Between groups 0.22 2 0.11 0.07 0.92
Within groups 97.58 68 1.43
Total 97.80 70
ECSP Main task Between groups 4.82 2 2.41 0.67 0.51
Within groups 244.74 68 3.59
Total 249.56 70
Repeated task Between groups 14.82 2 7.41 2.01 0.14
Within groups 249.64 68 3.67
Total 264.46 70
New task Between groups 2.80 2 1.40 0.47 0.62
Within groups 202.74 68 2.98
Total 205.54 70
Number of repair repeated task Main task Between groups 3.16 2 1.58 0.90 0.40
Within groups 118.83 68 1.74
Total 121.99 70
Repeated task Between groups 8.40 2 4.20 2.90 0.06
Within groups 98.36 68 1.44
Total 106.77 70
New task Between groups 0.574 2 0.28 0.27 0.76
Within groups 70.721 68 1.04
Total 71.295 70
Table 12:

Tukey test for fluency.

Dependent variable (I) groups (J) groups Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig. 95% confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
Words per minute Main task TR + OM TR + WM −0.17 0.29 0.83 −0.88 0.53
TR −0.14 0.30 0.88 −0.87 0.58
TR TR + WM −0.02 0.30 0.99 −0.75 0.70
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM 0.32 0.36 0.64 −0.54 1.18
TR 1.48* 0.36 0.00 0.59 2.36
TR TR + WM −1.16* 0.37 0.00 −2.05 −0.26
New task TR + OM TR + WM 0.32 0.37 0.66 −0.57 1.21
TR 1.35* 0.38 0.00 0.43 2.26
TR TR + WM −1.03* 0.38 0.02 −1.95 −0.10
MCFP Main task TR + OM TR + WM 0.32 0.67 0.87 −1.29 1.95
TR −0.60 0.69 0.65 −2.27 1.05
TR TR + WM 0.93 0.70 0.37 −0.74 2.61
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM −0.33 0.60 0.84 −1.77 1.10
TR −0.31 0.61 0.86 −1.78 1.15
TR TR + WM −0.02 0.62 0.99 −1.50 1.46
New task TR + OM TR + WM 0.13 0.62 0.97 −1.36 1.64
TR −0.48 0.64 0.73 −2.02 1.06
TR TR + WM 0.61 0.64 0.61 −0.93 2.17
MCSP Main task TR + OM TR + WM 0.13 0.37 0.96 −1.22 1.50
TR 0.3 0.58 0.83 −1.06 1.73
TR TR + WM −0.19 0.59 0.94 −1.60 1.21
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM −0.48 0.43 0.49 −1.52 0.54
TR −0.35 0.44 0.70 −1.40 0.70
TR TR + WM −0.13 0.44 0.94 −1.20 0.93
New task TR + OM TR + WM −0.47 0.44 0.54 −1.54 0.59
TR −0.11 0.45 0.96 −1.21 0.97
TR TR + WM −0.35 0.46 0.72 −1.46 0.75
ECFP Main task TR + OM TR + WM −0.41 0.35 0.47 −1.26 0.43
TR −0.19 0.36 0.85 −1.05 0.67
TR TR + WM −0.22 0.36 0.81 −1.09 0.65
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM −0.32 0.32 0.57 −1.10 0.44
TR −0.12 0.33 0.92 −0.91 0.66
TR TR + WM −0.20 0.33 0.81 −1.00 0.59
New task TR + OM TR + WM −0.05 0.34 0.98 −0.87 0.76
TR 0.08 0.35 0.96 −0.75 0.92
TR TR + OM −0.08 0.35 0.96 −0.92 0.75
TR + WM −0.13 0.35 0.91 −0.98 0.70
ECSP Main task TR + OM TR + WM −0.39 0.54 0.74 −1.69 0.89
TR 0.23 0.55 0.90 −1.08 1.56
TR + WM TR + OM 0.39 0.54 0.74 −0.89 1.69
TR 0.63 0.55 0.49 −0.70 1.98
TR TR + WM −0.63 0.55 0.49 −1.98 0.70
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM 0.12 0.54 0.97 −1.18 1.44
TR 1.04 0.56 0.15 −0.29 2.38
TR TR + WM −0.91 0.56 0.24 −2.27 0.43
New task TR + OM TR + WM −0.06 0.49 0.99 −1.24 1.11
TR −0.45 0.50 0.63 −1.66 0.75
TR TR + WM 0.39 0.50 0.72 −0.82 1.61
Number of repair Main task TR + OM TR + WM −0.49 0.37 0.40 −1.39 0.41
TR −0.12 0.38 0.94 −1.04 0.80
TR TR + WM −0.36 0.39 0.61 −1.30 0.56
Repeated task TR + OM TR + WM 0.13 0.34 0.92 −0.69 0.95
TR −0.67 0.35 0.14 −1.51 0.17
TR TR + WM 0.80 0.35 0.06 −0.04 1.65
New task TR + OM TR + WM −0.11 0.29 0.91 −0.81 0.58
TR −0.22 0.29 0.74 −0.93 0.49
TR TR + WM 0.10 0.30 0.93 −0.61 0.82
Table 13:

T-test results for fluency.

Paired differences t df Sig- (2-tailed)
Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean 95% confidence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
Words per minute
TR + OM Main task-repeated task −2.71 1.34 0.26 −3.26 −2.15 −10.03 24 0.00
Main task-new task −2.67 1.35 0.27 −3.23 −2.11 −9.87 24 0.00
Repeated task-new task 0.03 0.33 0.06 −0.10 0.17 0.51 24 0.61
TR + WM Main task-repeated task −2.21 1.34 0.27 −2.78 −1.65 −8.10 23 0.00
Main task-new task −2.18 1.34 77 −2.75 −1.61 −7.95 23 0.00
Repeated task-new task 0.03 0.16 0.03 −0.03 0.10 1.07 23 0.29
TR Main task-repeated task −1.08 0.99 0.21 −1.52 −0.64 −5.11 21 0.00
Main task-new task −1.17 1.09 0.23 −1.66 −0.69 −5.06 21 0.00
Repeated task-new task −0.09 0.52 0.11 −0.32 1.36 −0.85 21 0.40
MCFP
TR + OM Main task-repeated task 0.18 3.36 0.67 −1.20 1.56 0.26 24 0.79
Main task-new task −0.21 3.15 0.63 −1.51 1.08 −0.34 24 0.73
Repeated task-new task −0.39 2.91 0.58 −1.59 0.80 −0.67 24 0.50
TR + WM Main task-repeated task −0.48 2.78 0.56 −1.65 0.69 −0.85 23 0.40
Main task-new task −0.40 3.17 0.64 −1.74 0.93 −0.63 23 0.53
Repeated task-new task 0.07 2.05 0.41 −0.79 0.94 0.18 23 0.85
TR Main task-repeated task 0.47 2.77 0.59 −0.75 1.70 0.80 21 0.42
Main task-new task −0.08 3.42 0.73 −1.60 1.43 −0.11 21 0.90
Repeated task-new task −0.56 3.49 0.74 −2.11 0.98 −0.75 21 0.45
MCSP
TR + OM Main task-repeated task 1.89 2.27 0.45 0.95 2.83 4.16 24 0.00
Main task-new task 1.84 1.59 0.31 1.18 2.49 5.78 24 0.00
Repeated task-new task −0.05 2.25 0.45 −0.98 0.87 −0.11 24 0.91
TR + WM Main task-repeated task 1.26 1.99 0.40 0.42 2.10 3.10 23 005
Main task-new task 1.23 2.80 0.57 0.04 2.41 2.14 23 0.04
Repeated task-new task −0.03 2.36 0.43 −1.03 0.96 −0.06 23 0.94
TR Main task-repeated task 1.20 2.65 0.56 0.03 2.38 2.13 21 0.04
Main task-new task 1.39 2.86 0.61 0.12 2.66 2.23 21 0.03
Repeated task-new task 0.18 1.50 0.32 −0.48 0.85 0.57 21 0.57
ECFP
TR + OM Main task-repeated task −0.27 1.64 0.32 −0.95 0.40 −0.82 24 0.41
Main task-new task −0.33 2.01 0.40 −1.16 0.50 −0.82 24 0.42
Repeated task-new task −0.05 1.84 0.36 −0.82 0.70 −0.15 24 0.87
TR + WM Main task-repeated task −0.18 1.65 0.33 −0.88 0.51 −0.55 23 0.58
Main task-new task 0.03 1.53 0.31 −0.61 0.67 0.09 23 0.92
Repeated task-new task 0.21 1.53 0.31 −0.43 0.86 0.68 23 0.49
TR Main task-repeated task −0.20 1.85 0.39 −1.03 0.61 −0.52 21 0.60
Main task-new task −0.05 1.41 0.30 −0.68 0.57 −0.17 21 0.86
Repeated task-new task 0.15 1.74 0.37 −0.61 0.92 0.41 21 0.68
ESCP
TR + OM Main task-repeated task −0.46 2.41 0.48 −1.46 0.53 −0.96 24 0.34
Main task-new task 0.26 3.00 0.60 −0.97 1.30 0.44 24 0.66
Repeated task-new task 0.73 3.28 0.65 −0.62 2.08 1.11 24 0.27
TR + WM Main task-repeated task 0.06 2.76 0.56 −1.10 1.22 0.10 23 0.91
Main task-new task 0.59 2.14 0.43 −0.30 1.50 1.36 23 0.18
Repeated task-new task 0.53 2.80 0.57 −0.64 1.71 0.93 21 0.35
TR Main task-repeated task 0.33 3.04 0.64 −1.01 1.68 0.32 21 0.60
Main task-new task −0.43 2.36 0.50 −1.48 0.61 −0.85 21 0.40
Repeated task-new task −0.77 1.51 0.32 −1.44 0.10 −2.39 21 0.20
Number of repair
TR + OM Main task-repeated task 1.76 1.75 0.35 1.02 2.30 4.92 24 0.00
Main task-new task 1.14 1.59 0.32 0.46 1.81 3.49 24 0.002
Repeated task-new task −0.62 1.65 0.33 −1.31 0.07 −1.84 24 0.07
TR + MW Main task-repeated task 1.14 1.90 0.38 0.35 1.92 2.99 23 0.006
Main task-new task 0.76 1.75 0.35 0.04 1.48 2.18 23 0.03
Repeated task-new task −0.37 1.85 0.37 −1.14 0.39 −1.00 24 0.34
TR Main task-repeated task 0.59 1.84 0.39 −0.22 1.41 1.50 21 0.14
Main task-new task 0.66 1.65 0.35 −0.06 1.40 1.88 21 0.07
Repeated task-new task 0.07 1.63 0.34 −0.65 0.80 0.21 21 0.83

References

Absalom, Matthew & Andrea Rizzi. 2008. Comparing the outcomes of online listening versus online text-based tasks in university level Italian L2 study. ReCALL 20. 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344008000517.Search in Google Scholar

Ahmadian, Mohammad Javad & Mansoor Tavakoli. 2011. The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research 15(1). 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329.Search in Google Scholar

Allan, Dave. 2004. Oxford placement tests 2: Test pack. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Steven. 2011. Listening myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.2132445Search in Google Scholar

Bui, Gavin, Mohammad Javad Ahmadian & Ann-Marie Hunter. 2019. Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System 81. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006.Search in Google Scholar

Bygate, Martin. 1996. Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In Jane Willis & Dave Willis (eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching, 136–146. Oxford, UK: Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar

Bygate, Martin. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate Martin, Skehan Peter & Merrille Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks second language learning, teaching and testing, 23–48. London, New York: Pearson Publication.Search in Google Scholar

Bygate, Martin. 2018. Introduction. In Bygate Martin (ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 1–25. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.introSearch in Google Scholar

Bygate, Martin & Virginia Samuda. 2005. Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 37–74. Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/lllt.11.05bygSearch in Google Scholar

Canovas Guirao, Josefa. 2011. The use of models as a written feedback tool in primary education. Spain: University of Murcia MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Daniel, David B. & William Douglas Woody. 2010. They hear, but do not listen: Retention for podcasted material in a classroom context. Teaching of Psychology 37. 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986283.2010.488542.Search in Google Scholar

Duran-Karaoz, Zeynep & Parvaneh Tavakoli. 2020. Predicting L2 fluency from L1 fluency behavior: The case of L1 Turkish and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42. 671–695. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263119000755.Search in Google Scholar

Egi, Takako. 2008. Investigating stimulated recall as a cognitive measure: Reactivity and verbal reports in SLA research methodology. Language Awareness 17. 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146859.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 1994. A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Nick Ellis (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages, 79–114. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2016. Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research 20. 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod & Gary Barkhuizen. 2005. Analyzing learner language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod, Peter Skehan, Shaofeng Li, Natsuko Shintani & Craig Lambert. 2020. Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108643689Search in Google Scholar

Fukuta, Junya. 2016. Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research 20(3). 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815570142.Search in Google Scholar

Garcia, Mayo, Maria del Pilar & Ainara Imaz Agirre. 2016. Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. Language Learning Journal 44. 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799.Search in Google Scholar

Glenberg, Arthur M. 1979. Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition 7(2). 95–112. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197590.Search in Google Scholar

Hanaoka, Osamu. 2006. Exploring the role of models in promoting noticing in L2 writing. JACET Bulletin 42. 1–13.Search in Google Scholar

Hanaoka, Osamu. 2007. Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia Linguistica 54. 167–192.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkes, Martin L. 2012. Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal 66(3). 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr059.Search in Google Scholar

Heaton, John Brian. 1975. Beginning composition through pictures. London, UK: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Hsu, Hsiu-Chen. 2015. The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics 38(3). 359–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv032.Search in Google Scholar

Hu, Xingchao. 2018. Effects of task type, task-type repetition, and performance criteria on L2 oral production. In Bygate Martin (ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 143–169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.06huSearch in Google Scholar

Iwashita, Noriko. 2003. Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25. 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263103000019.Search in Google Scholar

Jonsson, Ewa. 2015. Conversational writing: A multidimensional study of synchronous and supersynchronous computer-mediated communication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-06512-1Search in Google Scholar

Khezrlou, Sima. 2019a. Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765.Search in Google Scholar

Khezrlou, Sima. 2019b. Task repetition and corrective feedback: The role of feedback types and structure saliency. English Teaching and Learning 43(2). 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00025-2.Search in Google Scholar

Khezrlou, Sima. 2020a. Training planning in second language narrative writing. ELT Journal 74(1). 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz050.Search in Google Scholar

Khezrlou, Sima. 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. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe.Search in Google Scholar

Khezrlou, Sima. 2021. Explicit instruction through task repetition: Effects on explicit and implicit knowledge development. Language Awareness 30(1). 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1866590.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin. 2013. Effects of pre-task modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly 47. 8–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.52.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin, Bumyong Choi, Hyunae Yun, Binna Kim & Sujeong Choi. 2020. Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin & Kim McDonough. 2011. Using pre-task modeling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research 15. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388711.Search in Google Scholar

Lazaro Ibarrola, Amparo & Maria Angeles Hidalgo. 2017. Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics 168. 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.16024.laz.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, Tony. 2018. Enhancing task repetition in second language speaking classes. In Bygate Martin (ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 193–222. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.08lynSearch in Google Scholar

Martinez, Estean & Julio Roca de Larios. 2010. The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies 2. 143–170. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119241.Search in Google Scholar

Mora, Joan C. & Margalida Valls-Ferrer. 2012. Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly 46. 610–641.10.1002/tesq.34Search in Google Scholar

Moyer, Jessica. 2011. “Teens today don’t read books anymore”: A study of differences in comprehension and interest across formats. USA: University of Minnesota PhD Dissertation.10.1145/1940761.1940918Search in Google Scholar

Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044.Search in Google Scholar

Nunan, David. 2004. Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667336Search in Google Scholar

Ortega, Lourdes. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24(4). 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492.Search in Google Scholar

Park, Gi-Pyo. 2004. Comparison of L2 listening and reading comprehension by university students learning English in Korea. Foreign Language Annals 37(3). 448–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02702.x.Search in Google Scholar

Plonsky, Luke & Frederick L. Oswald. 2014. How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64(4). 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, Jack. 1985. Conversational competence through role play. RELC Journal 16(1). 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828501600107.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter. 1995. Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning 45(1). 99–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00964.x.Search in Google Scholar

Sheppard, Christopher. 2006. The effects of instruction directed at the gaps second language learners noticed in their oral production. New Zealand: The University of Auckland PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Sheppard, Christopher & Rod Ellis. 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. In Bygate Martin (ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 177–199. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.07sheSearch in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1177/003368829802900209Search in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 2014. Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In Skehan Peter (ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance, 211–260. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.5.08skeSearch in Google Scholar

Tavakoli, Parvaneh, Colin Campbell & Joan McCormack. 2016. Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly 50. 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.244.Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill. 1990. Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12. 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100009177.Search in Google Scholar

Willis, Jane & Dave Willis. 1988. COBUILD English course. London: Collins.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2020-08-29
Accepted: 2021-06-15
Published Online: 2021-07-02
Published in Print: 2023-06-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring ESOL teachers’ perspectives on the language learning experiences, challenges, and motivations of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK
  4. Thai tonal confusion patterns in the production of L1 Chinese Zhuang students
  5. Lexical measures as a proxy for bilingual language dominance?
  6. Elicited metaphoric competence in a second language: a construct associated with vocabulary knowledge and general proficiency?
  7. Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality
  8. Investigating Indonesian EFL learners’ knowledge and use of English causative constructions
  9. The relationship between university EFL teachers’ oral feedback beliefs and practices and the impact of individual differences
  10. “We thought about it together and the solution came to our minds”: languaging linguistic problem-solving in multilingual Finnish classrooms
  11. Lexical stress assignment preferences in L2 German
  12. Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling
  13. Prior processing, foreign language classroom anxiety, and L2 fluency
  14. Analyzing trends in the aural decoding errors of Japanese EFL learners
  15. Effects of task complexity on the learning of genre specific rhetorical moves and linguistic forms: the case of contrast and argumentative essays
  16. Glossing and incidental vocabulary learning in L2 reading: a cognitive load perspective
  17. Factor structures of speed and breakdown fluency in EFL learners’ story retelling performances
  18. The acquisition of L3 French present simple and present progressive by adult L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2020-0125
Keywords for this article
CAF; focus on form; task-based language teaching; task modeling; task repetition

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring ESOL teachers’ perspectives on the language learning experiences, challenges, and motivations of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK
  4. Thai tonal confusion patterns in the production of L1 Chinese Zhuang students
  5. Lexical measures as a proxy for bilingual language dominance?
  6. Elicited metaphoric competence in a second language: a construct associated with vocabulary knowledge and general proficiency?
  7. Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality
  8. Investigating Indonesian EFL learners’ knowledge and use of English causative constructions
  9. The relationship between university EFL teachers’ oral feedback beliefs and practices and the impact of individual differences
  10. “We thought about it together and the solution came to our minds”: languaging linguistic problem-solving in multilingual Finnish classrooms
  11. Lexical stress assignment preferences in L2 German
  12. Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling
  13. Prior processing, foreign language classroom anxiety, and L2 fluency
  14. Analyzing trends in the aural decoding errors of Japanese EFL learners
  15. Effects of task complexity on the learning of genre specific rhetorical moves and linguistic forms: the case of contrast and argumentative essays
  16. Glossing and incidental vocabulary learning in L2 reading: a cognitive load perspective
  17. Factor structures of speed and breakdown fluency in EFL learners’ story retelling performances
  18. The acquisition of L3 French present simple and present progressive by adult L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2020-0125/html
Scroll to top button