Home Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning

  • Janire Guerrero-Gomez , María Orcasitas-Vicandi ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Marta Kopinska
Published/Copyright: May 14, 2024
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 63 Issue 2

Abstract

The present study seeks to investigate the effect of repeated pre-task planning on young learners’ written production of three problematic aspects of English grammar (the present simple third-person singular -s; the possessives his/her; and the personal pronouns he/she), and the overall quality of their writings. Thirty-three dyads of Basque-Spanish learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) from the sixth year of the primary education level (aged 11–12) performed a series of picture-prompted narration tasks in three different planning conditions: guided-planning (GP), unguided-planning (UP) and no-planning (NP). Their written production was compared in pre-, post- and delayed post-tests. Results showed statistically significant gains for the GP group, supporting the claim that repeated practice involving pre-task explicit grammar instruction might benefit young EFL learners, even though not all the target forms under analysis improved.

Keywords: young learners; EFL; pre-task planning; guided planning; task repetition
Corresponding author: María Orcasitas-Vicandi, University of the Basque Country – Alava Campus, Paseo de las universidades 5, Vitoria Gasteiz, 01006, Spain, E-mail:

Funding source: Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad

Award Identifier / Grant number: PID2020-113630-GB-100

Funding source: Eusko Jaurlaritza

Award Identifier / Grant number: IT1426-22

Award Identifier / Grant number: IT904-16

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable suggestions to improve the manuscript. We would also like to wholeheartedly thank the school headteacher, the teachers and the children involved in this study.

  1. Research funding: This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad [MINECO], http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003329) and the National Research Agency and European Regional Development Fund (AEI/FEDER/EU) under grant PID2020-113630-GB-100, and by the Basque Government (Eusko Jaurlaritza, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003086) under grants IT904-16 and IT1426-22.

Appendixes

Appendix 1 Guidelines for the three conditions (NP, UP and GP)

(Spanish version)

Directrices para el grupo sin planificación previa (NP)

Por favor, mirad las cuatro viñetas. Imaginad que tenéis que contar la historia a vuestros padres cuando volváis a casa. Tenéis que empezar con la viñeta número 1 y seguir el orden hasta la número 4.

Tenéis un máximo de 10 minutos para contar la historia y para escribirla juntos.

Podéis comenzar así: “One day …”. Tenéis que narrar la historia en presente.

Por favor, comenzad ahora.

Directrices para el grupo con planificación previa pero sin guía (UP)

Por favor, mirad las cuatro viñetas. Imaginad que tenéis que contar la historia a vuestros padres cuando volváis a casa. Tenéis que empezar con la viñeta número 1 y seguir el orden hasta la número 4.

Tenéis 5 minutos para prepararos para la tarea. Podéis coger apuntes en esta hoja durante esos 5 minutos.

Después de que os hayáis preparado, tendréis un máximo de 10 minutos para contar la historia y escribirla juntos.

Podéis comenzar así: “One day …”. Tenéis que narrar la historia en presente.

Por favor, comenzad ahora.

Directrices para el grupo con planificación previa y guía (GP)

Por favor, mirad las cuatro viñetas. Imaginad que tenéis que contar la historia a vuestros padres cuando volváis a casa. Tenéis que empezar con la viñeta número 1 y seguir el orden hasta la número 4.

Tenéis 5 minutos para prepararos para la tarea. Podéis coger apuntes en esta hoja durante esos 5 minutos.

Después de que os hayáis preparado, tendréis un máximo de 10 minutos para contar la historia y escribirla juntos.

Podéis comenzar así: “One day … ”. Tenéis que narrar la historia en presente.

IMPORTANTE

  1. Pensad en qué describir en cada una de las cuatro viñetas:

    1. Viñeta 1.

    2. Viñeta 2.

    3. Viñeta 3:

    4. Viñeta 4:

¡¡ATENCIÓN!!

  1. Recordad que cuando os refiráis al padre, tenéis que utilizar he/his/him

  2. Recordad que cuando os refiráis a la niña, tenéis que utilizar she/her/her

  3. Por favor, recordad utilizar la -s de la tercera persona del singular: “He sings”; “She talks”

Por favor, comenzad ahora.

(English version)

Instructions for no planning condition (NP)

Please look at the four images. Imagine that you have to tell the story to your parents when you return home. You have to start with image number 1 and follow the order until number 4.

You have a maximum of 10 min to tell the story and to write it together.

You can start like this: “One day …”. You have to tell the story in the present tense.

Please, start now.

Instructions for unguided planning condition (UP)

Please look at the four images. Imagine that you have to tell the story to your parents when you return home. You have to start with image number 1 and follow the order until number 4.

You have 5 min to prepare for the task. You can take notes on this sheet during those 5 min.

After you have prepared, you will have a maximum of 10 min to tell the story and write it together.

You can start like this: “One day …”. You have to tell the story in the present tense.

Please, start now.

Instructions for guided planning condition (GP)

Please look at the four images. Imagine that you have to tell the story to your parents when you return home. You have to start with image number 1 and follow the order until number 4.

You have 5 min to prepare for the task. You can take notes on this sheet during those 5 min.

After you have prepared, you will have a maximum of 10 min to tell the story and write it together.

You can start like this: “One day … ”. You have to tell the story in the present tense.

IMPORTANT

Think about what to describe in each of the four images:

Image 1:

Image 2:

Image 3:

Image 4:

ATTENTION!!

Remember that when you refer to the father, you have to use he/his/him.

Remember that when you refer to the girl, you have to use she/her/her.

Please, remember to use the -s of the third person singular: “He sings”; “She talks”

Please start now.

Appendix 2 Mean task completion time and mean text length for each group at the different points in time

Table 4:

Minimum, maximum and mean task completion time for each group at the different points in time.

NP UP GP
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
T1 03:50 12:22 07:15 04:11 11:31 07:56 03:18 12:11 07:09
T2 03:45 10:46 06:51 04:33 09:27 06:29 03:34 09:45 06:49
T3 04:57 09:21 07:05 03:55 09:12 07:02 03:56 09:56 06:58

  1. Note. NP = no planning; UP = unguided planning; GP = guided planning.

Table 5:

Mean text length (words and sentences) for each group at the different points in time.

NP UP GP
Words Sentences Words Sentences Words Sentences
T1 57.73 3.91 63.58 3.75 56.18 4.0
T2 51.60 3.67 62.75 3.83 50.33 3.67
T3 54.67 3.56 56.25 4.0 50.64 3.55

  1. Note. NP = no planning; UP = unguided planning; GP = guided planning.

Appendix 3 Holistic rubric adapted from Villarreal and Munarriz-Ibarrola (2021) (attached)

Appendix 4 Examples of the trajectories of the young learners’ texts

Today Susie have a nightmare whit a ghoast that wanted to trap her, she was very afred whit the nightmare and she wake up craying, her daddy go whit Susie and say her: - Imagine that a super hiro kicks the ghost and it dessapear. Susie sleep again and she dream that she can fly whit like a super hiro. (NP7, T1)

Today Emma and her father go to the house of her uncle that seels animals, they ask to emma’s uncle to take a rabbit. Emma is giving food to the rabbit but her father is thinking that he can cook it on a pot and eat it. When they arrived Emma’s father goes to the kitchen to put the rabbit on a pot, but Emma say to her father that she want the rabbit like a pet not like a food that you eat. Emma’s father is sad because Emma was crying and he let her the rabbit like a pet. (NP7, T2)

Today Anna and Alex go to the park and they see a nest. Then Alex take a rope and he climb it to reach the nest and a yellow bird it’s flying around the tree. The bird that is the mother of the little birds of the nest break the rope and Anna goes very fast for help. His dad comes to help Alex because Alex is crying and he can’t go down the rope. (NP7, T3)

One girl is sleeping on her bed and is having a nightmare. The nightmare is about a ghost that is traying to catch him. The girl starts to cry and his dad come, to ask him what happens. Dad come to her bed and tell the story about the ghost but a superhero defeat the ghost and save the girl. When the dad go out of the bedroom the girl dreams that she is flying with the superhero. (GP30, T1)

One girl and her father goes to a farm and take one rabbit of a cage. They arrive at home and the dad tries to cook it. But the girl starts to cry, because she doesn’t wants to cook. The girl takes to the garden to feed it. Later all the animals go around the girl because they want to eat. (GP30, T2)

A girl and a boy are in the forest. They see a nest and two birds. The boy wants to take the birds so he climb the rope. But the mum of the birds come and cut the rope, with her bick. The girl goes to call her father and comes. The boy starts to cry because he can’t go down. The father don’t know how to help him. (GP30, T3)

This night Lili is on her bed sleeping and she has a nightmare with a scary gost. She is afraid so wake up and her dad come. Later her dad tell that he is going to her nightmare and hit to the gost. Lili whit dad’s story dream whit a person fliying in the sky. She sleep okey and happy. (UP32, T1)

Today Lily is with her father and her father see a man who is with bunnyes. Her father buy one and is thinking that is going to cook it. When they enter to home, her father is putting in a pot but Lili start cryinig, so lili take the bunnye to her room and when his father come there are a lot of animals, like a dog, a sheep, a cat, birds. (UP32, T2)

Today Lili and her friend Jonh are looking to a nest whit little birds. Jonh decide to climb in the rope and take the little birds. Jonh is climbing and the birds mother come and break the rope. Lili is going to tell her father. Lili’s father come and see that Jonh is going to fall and is crying. (UP32, T3)

References

Ahmadian, Mohammad J. 2013. Working memory and task repetition in second language oral production. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 23(1). 37–55.Search in Google Scholar

Ahmadian, Mohammad J., Abbas Mansouri & Shiva Ghominejad. 2017. Language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of task repetition. English Language Teaching Journal 71(4). 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx011.Search in Google Scholar

Ahmadian, Mohammad J. & 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

Akakura, Motoko. 2012. Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research 16(1). 9–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811423339.Search 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

Ammar, Ahlem & Nina Spada. 2006. One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28. 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060268.Search in Google Scholar

Azkarai, Agurtzane & María del Pilar García Mayo. 2017. Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research 21(4). 480–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816654169.Search in Google Scholar

Baba, Kyoko & Ryo Nitta. 2011. Dynamic effects of repeating a timed writing task in two EFL university courses: Multielement text analysis with Coh‐Metrix. In Philip M. McCarthy & Chutima Boonthum-Denecke (eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution, 397–411. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch023Search in Google Scholar

Baddeley, Alan. 2007. Working memory, thought, and action, vol. 45. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001Search 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: Macmillan Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar

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

Bygate, Martin. 2009. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Kris van den Branden, Martin Bygate & John M. Norris (eds.), Task-based language teaching, vol. 1, 249–274. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.1.15effSearch in Google Scholar

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

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

Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo. 2021. Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness 30(1). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1751178.Search in Google Scholar

Cambridge Young Learners English Assessment. 2018. Cambridge English A2 Flyers. Volume 1. Cambridge English language assessment. Available at: https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/young-learners-sample-papers-2018-vol1.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Carver, Julie & YouJin Kim. 2020. French learners’ past tense development through collaborative writing tasks: The role of procedural and content repetition. Canadian Modern Language Review 76(2). 114–138. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr-2018-0231.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Laura & Carmen Muñoz. 2016. The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal 100. 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12305.Search in Google Scholar

Council of Europe. 2018. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. companion volume with new descriptors. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.Search in Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2011. Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31. 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092.Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert. 2000. The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22. 493–533. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100004022.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2001. Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51. 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x.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. 2022. Does planning before writing help? Options for pre-task planning in the teaching of writing. ELT Journal 76(1). 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab051.Search in Google Scholar

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

Foster, Pauline & Peter Skehan. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(3). 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100015047.Search in Google Scholar

Foster, Pauline & Peter Skehan. 1999. The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49. 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071.Search 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

García Mayo, María 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. The Language Learning Journal 44(4). 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799.Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, María del Pilar & Ainara Imaz Agirre. 2019. Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System 80. 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.011.Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, María del Pilar & María Luquin. 2023. Does repeated pre-task planning have an impact on form-focused LREs? Evidence from EFL children. Language Teaching for Young Learners 5(2). 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00038.may.Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, María del Pilar, Ainara Imaz Agirre & Agurtzane Azkarai. 2018. Task repetition effects on CAF in EFL child task-based oral interaction. In Mohammad Javad Ahmadian & María del Pilar García Mayo (eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching, 11–28. Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9781501503399-002Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan. M., Alison Mackey, María Jose Álvarez-Torres & Marisol Fernández-García. 1999. The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning 49(4). 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102.Search in Google Scholar

Goo, Jaemyung, Gisela Granena, Yucel Yilmaz & Miguel Novella. 2015. Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Patrick Rebuschat (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages, 443–483. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.48.18gooSearch in Google Scholar

Gorman, Mary & Rod Ellis. 2019. The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners 1. 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00005.gor.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkes, Martin. 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

Hidalgo, María de los Ángeles & María del Pilar García Mayo. 2021. The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research 25(4). 565–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819865559.Search in Google Scholar

Hidalgo, María de los Ángeles & Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola. 2020. Task repetition and collaborative writing by EFL children: Beyond CAF measures. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 10(3). 501–522. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.5.Search in Google Scholar

Hsu, Hsiu-Chen. 2017. 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

IBM Corp. 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. New York: IBM Corp.Search in Google Scholar

Imaz Agirre, Ainara & María del Pilar García Mayo. 2020. The impact of agency in pair formation on the degree of participation in young learners’ collaborative dialogue. In Craig Lambert & Rhonda Oliver (eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching: Practice in diverse contexts, 306–323. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.2307/jj.22730569.20Search in Google Scholar

Imaz Agirre, Ainara & María del Pilar García Mayo. 2013. Gender agreement in L3 English by Basque/Spanish bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(4). 415–447. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.4.02ima.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Mark D. & Mahmoud Abdi Tabari. 2022. Task planning and oral L2 production: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics 43(6). 1143–1164. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac026.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, Eun Young, Sarah Sok & ZhaoHong Han. 2019. Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 23(4). 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818776671.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, Sooyeon & Jin-Hwa Lee. 2019. Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 45. 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.08.001.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin. 2013. Effects of pretask modelling on attention to form and question development. Tesol Quarterly 47(1). 8–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.52.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin, Bumyong Choi, Hyunae Yun, Binna Kim & Sujeong Choi. 2020a. Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research 26(6). 1106–1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin, Sanghee Kang, Hyunae Yun, Binna Kim & Bumyong Choi. 2020b. The role of task repetition in a Korean as a foreign language classroom: Writing quality, attention to form, and learning of Korean grammar. Foreign Language Annals 53(4). 827–849. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12501.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin & Nicole Tracy-Ventura. 2013. The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System 41(3). 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005.Search in Google Scholar

Lambert, Craig, Jenepher Philp & Sachiko Nakamura. 2017. Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research 21(6). 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683559.Search in Google Scholar

Lázaro-Ibarrola, Amparo & María de los Ángeles Hidalgo. 2017. Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners: Does it make a difference? ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics 168(2). 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.16024.laz.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Lanlan, Jiliang Chen & Lan Sun. 2015. The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 Learners’ oral test performance. Tesol Quarterly 49(1). 38–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.159.Search in Google Scholar

Lloyd, Jackie. 2022. The effects of various combinations of form-focused instruction techniques on the acquisition of English articles by second language learners of English. St Catharines: ON: Brock University dissertation.10.1177/13621688231193153Search in Google Scholar

Long, Michael H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In William Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition, 413–468. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, Tony & Joan Maclean. 2000. Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research 4(3). 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1191/136216800125078.Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, Roy. 2007. Learning and teaching languages through content. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.18Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, Roy. 2018. Content-based language teaching. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315103037Search in Google Scholar

Mackey, Alison, Alec P. Kanganas & Rhonda Oliver. 2007. Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. Tesol Quarterly 41(2). 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00060.x.Search in Google Scholar

Markee, Numa & Silvia Kunitz. 2013. Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning 63(4). 629–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12019.Search in Google Scholar

Marsden, Emma & Hsin-Ying Chen. 2011. The roles of structured input activities in processing instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning 61. 1058–1098. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00661.x.Search in Google Scholar

Martínez-Adrián, María & Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta. 2020. The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL English learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 10(3). 473–500. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.4.Search in Google Scholar

Mochizuki, Naoko & Lourdes Ortega. 2008. Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research 12(1). 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807084492.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 and teaching: Insights from writing, 107–136. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.7.05nitSearch in Google Scholar

Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50. 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136.Search in Google Scholar

Park, Sujung. 2010. The influence of pretask instructions and pretask planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research 14(1). 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809346491.Search in Google Scholar

Patanasorn, Chomraj. 2010. Effects of procedural, content, and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Philp, Jenefer, Rhonda Oliver & Alison Mackey. 2006. The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System 34(4). 547–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004.Search in Google Scholar

Pinter, Annamaria. 2005. Task repetition with 10-year old children. In Corony Edwards & Jane Willis (eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching, 113–126. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230522961_11Search in Google Scholar

Pinter, Annamaria. 2007. Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10 year-old children practicing with a communicative task. Language Teaching Research 11(2). 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074604.Search in Google Scholar

Polio, Charlene. 2020. Can writing facilitate the development of grammatical competence? Advancing research agendas. In Rosa Manchón (ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas, 381–402. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.56.16polSearch in Google Scholar

Polio, Charlene & Mark C. Shea. 2014. An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing 26. 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003.Search in Google Scholar

Qin, Jie. 2019. Effects of repeated practice in pre-task planning on the acquisition of English personal pronouns by Chinese EFL learners. System 81. 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.010.Search in Google Scholar

Romanova, Natalia. 2010. Planning, recasts, and learning of L2 morphology. Canadian Modern Language Review 66(6). 843–875. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.843.Search in Google Scholar

Sample, Evelyn & Marije Michel. 2014. An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal 31(8). 23–46. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v31i0.1185.Search in Google Scholar

Sangarun, Jiraporn. 2005. The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 111–142. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11.08sanSearch in Google Scholar

Sato, Masatoshi & Juan C. Oyanedel. 2019. Survey data of English teachers’ beliefs about second language instruction in Chile. Data in Brief 27. 104702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104702.Search in Google Scholar

Sheppard, Chris & 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 Martin Bygate (ed.), Learning through task repetition, 171–192. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.11.07sheSearch in Google Scholar

Shintani, Natsuko. 2012. Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research 16. 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811431378.Search in Google Scholar

Shintani, Natsuko. 2015. The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner learners. Tesol Quarterly 49(1). 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.166.Search in Google Scholar

Shintani, Natsuko & Rod Ellis. 2010. The incidental acquisition of English plural –s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32. 607–637. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263110000288.Search in Google Scholar

Sippel, Lieselotte. 2024. Maximizing the benefits of peer interaction: Form-focused instruction and peer feedback training. Language Teaching Research 28(2). 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211004638.Search in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 2009. Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 510–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047.Search in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 2014. Processing perspectives on task performance, vol. 5. London: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.5Search in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 2001. Cognition and tasks. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 183–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Cambridge Core.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009Search in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 2005. Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 193–216. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/lllt.11.12skeSearch in Google Scholar

Spada, Nina. 1997. Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroon and laboratory research. Language Teaching 30(2). 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444800012799.Search in Google Scholar

Spada, Nina & Yasuyo Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2). 263–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x.Search in Google Scholar

Stansfield, Charles W., Daniel J. Reed & Ana María Velasco. 2005. The Modern language aptitude test- elementary: Spanish version (MLAT-ES). Rockville, MD: Language Learning and Testing Foundation.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2002. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52(1). 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2005. Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3). 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy & Gillian Wigglesworth. 2007. Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In María del Pilar García Mayo (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, 157–177. London: Multilingual Matters.10.2307/jj.27939675.13Search in Google Scholar

Sun, Bo & Andrea Révész. 2021. The effects of task repetition on child EFL learners’ oral performance. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 24(2). 30–47. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31382.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Sharon Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82(3). 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x.Search in Google Scholar

Thai, Chau & Frank Boers. 2016. Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Tesol Quarterly 50(2). 369–393.10.1002/tesq.232Search 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

VanPatten, Bill. 2017. Situating instructed language acquisition: Facts about second language acquisition. Instructed Second Language Acquisition 1(1). 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.33315.Search in Google Scholar

Villarreal, Izaskun & Miren Munarriz-Ibarrola. 2021. Together we do better’: The effect of pair and group work on young EFL learners’ written texts and attitudes. In María del Pilar García Mayo (ed.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning, 89–116. Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501511318-005Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Zhiquin. 2014. Developing accuracy and fluency in spoken English of Chinese EFL learners. English Language Teaching 7(2). 110–118. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p110.Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Hainu & Roy Lyster. 2014. Differential effects of explicit form-focused instruction on morphosyntactic development. Language Awareness 23(1-2). 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863899.Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Jinfen & Changying Li. 2021. The effects of the timing of form-focused instruction on EFL learners’ learning of difficult and easy grammatical features: A comparative study. System 101. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102612.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Yingli & Roy Lyster. 2010. Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2). 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519.Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, Fangyuan & Rod Ellis. 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). 1–27.10.1093/applin/24.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Zuniga, Michael & Caroline Payant. 2021. In flow with task repetition during collaborative oral and writing tasks. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 24(2). 48–69. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31365.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2023-06-28
Accepted: 2024-04-28
Published Online: 2024-05-14
Published in Print: 2025-06-26

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Unpacking the positioning of being “disengaged” and “disrespectful” in class through nexus analysis: an international student’s navigation of institutional and interactional university norms
  4. Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements
  5. The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge
  6. Intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in primary school: evidence from Spanish EFL learners in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programmes
  7. Promoting young EFL learners’ oral production through storytelling: coursebook adaptation in the Vietnamese classroom
  8. Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on
  9. The impact of guessing and retrieval strategies for learning phrasal verbs
  10. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality
  11. Examining L2 studentsʼ development of global cohesion and its relationship with their argumentative essay quality
  12. The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?
  13. Discipline-specific attitudinal differences of EMI students towards translanguaging
  14. Relationship between second language vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning strategy use: a meta-analysis of correlational studies
  15. Evaluative language in undergraduate academic writing: expressions of attitude as sources of text effectiveness in English as a Foreign Language
  16. Investigating optimal spacing schedules for incidental acquisition of L2 collocations
  17. The association between socioeconomic status and Chinese secondary students’ English achievement: mediation of self-efficacy and moderation of gender
  18. Integrated instruction of Appraisal Theory and rhetorical moves in literature reviews: an exploratory study
  19. Scaffolding in genre-based L2 writing classes: Vietnamese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices
  20. Exploring the professional role identities of English for academic purposes practitioners: a qualitative study
  21. The combined effects of task repetition and post-task teacher-corrected transcribing on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 oral performance
  22. Teacher behaviour and student engagement with L2 writing feedback: a case study
  23. The effect of an intervention focused on academic language on CAF measures in the multilingual writing of secondary students
  24. Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?
  25. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning
  26. The mediating roles of resilience and motivation in the relationship between students’ English learning burnout and engagement: a conservation-of-resources perspective
  27. Student and teacher beliefs about oral corrective feedback in junior secondary English classrooms
  28. The effects of context, story-type, and language proficiency on EFL word learning and retention from reading
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0144
Keywords for this article
young learners; EFL; pre-task planning; guided planning; task repetition

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Unpacking the positioning of being “disengaged” and “disrespectful” in class through nexus analysis: an international student’s navigation of institutional and interactional university norms
  4. Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements
  5. The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge
  6. Intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in primary school: evidence from Spanish EFL learners in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programmes
  7. Promoting young EFL learners’ oral production through storytelling: coursebook adaptation in the Vietnamese classroom
  8. Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on
  9. The impact of guessing and retrieval strategies for learning phrasal verbs
  10. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality
  11. Examining L2 studentsʼ development of global cohesion and its relationship with their argumentative essay quality
  12. The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?
  13. Discipline-specific attitudinal differences of EMI students towards translanguaging
  14. Relationship between second language vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning strategy use: a meta-analysis of correlational studies
  15. Evaluative language in undergraduate academic writing: expressions of attitude as sources of text effectiveness in English as a Foreign Language
  16. Investigating optimal spacing schedules for incidental acquisition of L2 collocations
  17. The association between socioeconomic status and Chinese secondary students’ English achievement: mediation of self-efficacy and moderation of gender
  18. Integrated instruction of Appraisal Theory and rhetorical moves in literature reviews: an exploratory study
  19. Scaffolding in genre-based L2 writing classes: Vietnamese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices
  20. Exploring the professional role identities of English for academic purposes practitioners: a qualitative study
  21. The combined effects of task repetition and post-task teacher-corrected transcribing on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 oral performance
  22. Teacher behaviour and student engagement with L2 writing feedback: a case study
  23. The effect of an intervention focused on academic language on CAF measures in the multilingual writing of secondary students
  24. Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?
  25. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning
  26. The mediating roles of resilience and motivation in the relationship between students’ English learning burnout and engagement: a conservation-of-resources perspective
  27. Student and teacher beliefs about oral corrective feedback in junior secondary English classrooms
  28. The effects of context, story-type, and language proficiency on EFL word learning and retention from reading
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-2023-0144/html
Scroll to top button