L2 writing development through two types of writing task repetition

References

Amelohina, Victoria, Florentina Nicolas-Conesa & Rosa M. Manchón. 2020. Effects of task repetition with the aid of direct and indirect written corrective feedback: A longitudinal study in an out-of-school context. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas, 145–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.56.07ameSearch in Google Scholar

Amiryousefi, Mohammad. 2016. The differential effects of two types of task repetition on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: A focus on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning 29(5). 1052–1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040.Search in Google Scholar

Bulté, Bram & Alex Housen. 2018. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28(1). 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12196.Search in Google Scholar

Bygate, Martin (ed.). 2018. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11Search 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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11.05bygSearch in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod (ed.). 2005. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11Search in Google Scholar

Fukunaga, Tatsushi. 2019. L2 writing development in intermediate college-level Japanese-as-a-foreign-language classrooms. Purdue University. Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Ichikawa, Yasuko. 1997. Nihongo goyō rēbun shōjiten [A dictionary of Japanese language learners’ errors]. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.Search in Google Scholar

Ishibashi, Reiko. 2012. Dainigengo niyoru sakubun sanshutsu no ninchishinrigakuteki kenkyū: Gakushūsha shutai no gengo kyōiku notameni [Cognitive psychology studies on second language written production: For learner-centered language education]. Tokyo: Kazamashobo.Search in Google Scholar

Jung, Sehoon. 2013. The effect of task repetition and corrective feedback in L2 writing: A pilot study. MSU Working Papers in SLS 4. 24–38.Search in Google Scholar

Khezrlou, Sima. 2020. 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

Kellogg, Ronald T. 1996. A model of working memory in writing. In C. Michael Levy & Sarah Ransdell (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications, 57–71. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.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%2F1362168820912354.Search in Google Scholar

Kurohashi, Sadao & Makoto Nagao. 1998. Building a Japanese parsed corpus while improving the parsing system. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation, 719–724.Search in Google Scholar

Lambert, Craig, Judit Kormos & Danny Minn. 2017. Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(1). 167–196. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000085.Search in Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2009. Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp043.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Nagiko. 2006. Ryūgakusē no kaku nihongo ikenbun no bunseki: Nihonjin gakusē tono hikaku nioite [Analysis of Japanese argumentative essays written by international students: A comparison with Japanese students]. Ritsumeikan Hogaku Bessatsu: Kotoba to sono hirogari 4. 399–412.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Icy. 2019. Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching 52(4). 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000247.Search in Google Scholar

Manchón, Rosa M. 2014. The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing: Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 14. 13–41.10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02Search in Google Scholar

Mehrang, Faezeh. 2016. The effect of task structure, task repetition, and reformulation on foreign language written performance. New Zealand: The University of Auckland. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Neary‐Sundquist, Colleen A. 2016. Syntactic complexity at multiple proficiency levels of L2 German speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 27(1). 242–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12128.Search in Google Scholar

Nitta, Ryo & Kyoko Baba. 2014. Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In Heidi Byrnes & Rosa M. Manchón (eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing, 107–136. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.7.05nitSearch in Google Scholar

Nitta, Ryo & Kyoko Baba. 2018. Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective: The case of a writing task. In Martin Bygate (ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 279–309. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.11nitSearch 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

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

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

Polat, Brittany & Youjin Kim. 2013. Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics 35(2). 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt013.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter. 2001. Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 287–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter. 2011. Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance, 3–38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1Search in Google Scholar

Sánchez, Alberto J., Rosa M. Manchón & Roger Gilabert. 2020. The effects of task repetition across modalities and proficiency levels. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas, 121–144. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.56.06sanSearch in Google Scholar

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

Spoelman, Marianne & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2010. Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 31(4). 532–553. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq001.Search in Google Scholar

Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2014. An introduction to Japanese linguistics, 3rd edn. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Verspoor, Marjolijn, Wander Lowie & Marijn Van Dijk. 2008. Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal 92(2). 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x.Search in Google Scholar

Verspoor, Marjolijn, Monika S. Schmid & Xiaoyan Xu. 2012. A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(3). 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007.Search in Google Scholar

Verspoor, Marjolijn H. & Marijn van Dijk. 2011. Visualizing interactions between variables. In Marjolijn H. Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 85–98. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.29.05verSearch in Google Scholar

Weigle, Sara C. 2006. Investing in assessment: Designing tests to promote positive washback. In Paul Kei Matsuda, Christina Ortmeier-Hooper & Xiaoye You (eds.), The politics of second language writing: In search of the promised land, 222–244. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor.Search in Google Scholar

Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim. 1998. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Search in Google Scholar