Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 171:1 (2020) ► pp.90–112

The effect of task repetition on the patterns of interaction of ESL children

ORCID logo | Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
| Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
| Curtin University
Research on collaborative work has explored the benefits of task repetition (TR) for L2 development. TR has been claimed to improve L2 complexity, accuracy and fluency, provide opportunities for feedback, and increase learners’ engagement in their L2, as reported in studies that have explored patterns of interaction. Research on this topic, particularly that undertaken with EFL children as participants, has gained attention in recent years. However, there is a dearth of literature regarding the impact of TR on the patterns of interaction and on the opportunities to receive feedback for child ESL learners. The aim of the present study is to address this gap examining the interactions of 28 young ESL learners who completed the same spot-the-difference task twice within a 3-month time frame. The findings showed that the majority of pairs represented patterns of interaction with low levels of mutuality (i.e. engagement) and upon TR these patterns barely varied. However, regardless of learners’ patterns of interaction, these ESL learners provided feedback and negotiated during task-based interaction, especially the collaborative pairs.
Keywords: ESL, task repetition, patterns of interaction, young learners
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Patterns of interaction during L2 collaborative work
  • Task repetition
  • The study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedure
    • Analysis
  • Findings and discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 21 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.17034.azk
References (45)
References
Ahmadian, M. J. 2011. The Effect of ‘Massed’ Task Repetitions on Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency: Does it Transfer to a New Task? The Language Learning Journal 39 (3): 269–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Task Repetition in ELT. ELT Journal 66 (3): 380–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J., and M. 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 151: 35–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., and M. P. García Mayo. 2017. Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research 21 (4): 480–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., and R. Oliver. 2019. Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. The Language Learning Journal 47 (3): 269–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bret Blasco, A. 2014. L2 English young learners’ oral production skills in CLIL and EFL settings: A longitudinal study. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona dissertation.Google Scholar
Brooks, L., and R. Donato. 2009. Languaging in Collaborative Writing: Creation of and Response to Expertise. In Multiple Perspectives on Interaction. Second Language Research in honor of Susan M. Gass, edited by Mackey, A., and C. Polio, 58–89. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G., and W. Zeng. 2015. Young Foreign Language Learners’ Interactional Development in Task-based Paired Assessment in their First and Foreign Languages: A Case of English Learners in China. Education 3–13 431: 292–321.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. 1996. Effects of Task Repetition: Appraising the Developing Language of Learners. In Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, edited by Willis, J. and D. Willis (136–146). Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
2001. Effects of Task Repetition on the Structure and Control of Oral Language. In Task-based Learning: Language Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, edited by Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and M. Swain (23–48). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., and V. Samuda. 2005. Integrative Planning Through the Use of Task Repetition. In Planning and Task Performance in Second Language, edited by R. Ellis (37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. 2011. Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 311, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2016. Focus on Form: A Critical Review. Language Teaching Research 20 (3), 405–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuta, J. 2016. Effects of Task Repetition on Learners’ Attention Orientation in L2 Oral Production. Language Teaching Research 20 (3), 321–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., and A. Azkarai. 2016. EFL task-based interaction. Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In Peer interaction and second language learning: pedagogical potential and research agenda, edited by M. Sato, and S. Ballinger (241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., and A. 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 441, 451–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., A. Imaz Agirre and A. Azkarai. 2017. Task repetition effects on CAF in EFL child task-based oral interaction. In Recent Perspectives on Task-based Language Learning and Teaching, edited by M. Ahmadian, and M. P. García Mayo (11–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. and M. L. García Lecumberri. 2003. Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarred, A., and N. Roelofs. 2003. Developing Oral Language with Barrier Games. Bentley, WA: Hands on Concepts.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., and N. Tracy-Ventura. 2013. The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System 411: 829–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. 2000. Second Language Learning as a Mediated Process. Language Teaching 331, 79–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro Ibarrola, A., and R. Azpilicueta Martínez. 2015. Investigating Negotiation of Meaning in EFL Children with Very Low Levels of Proficiency. International Journal of English Studies 15 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1996. The Role of Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In Handbook of Research on Language Acquisition, edited by Ritchie, W. C., and T. Bhatia (413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19 (1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., A. P. Kanganas and R. Oliver. 2007. Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 41 (2), 285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. 1995. Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 171, 459–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal 82 (3), 372–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal 86 (1), 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., and A. Azkarai. 2019. Patterns of interaction and young ESL learners: What is the impact of proficiency and task type? Language Teaching for Young Learners 1 (1), 82–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patanasorn, C. 2010. Effects of Procedural Content and Task Repetition on Accuracy and Fluency in an EFL Context. PhD Dissertation. Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Philp, J., R. Oliver, and A. Mackey. 2008. Second Language Acquisition and the Younger Learner. Child’s Play? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., R. Kanagy, and F. Falodun. 1993. Choosing and Using Communication Tasks for Second Language Instruction and Research. In Tasks and Language Learning, edited by Crookes, G. and S. M. Gass (9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pinter, A. 2007. Some Benefits of Peer-peer Interaction: 10-year-old Children Practising with a Communication Task. Language Teaching Research 111: 189–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouhshad, A., and N. Storch. 2016. A Focus on Mode. Patterns of Interaction in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Contexts. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning. Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda, edited by Sato, M., and S. Ballinger (267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sample, E., and M. Michel. 2014. An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy and fluency in young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal 311: 23–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. 2012. Repeating Input-based Tasks with Young Beginner Learners. RELC Journal 43 (1): 39–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Using Tasks with Young Beginner Learners: The Role of the Teacher. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 8 (3): 279–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. 2002. Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning 51: 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. The Nature of Pair Interaction: Learners’ Interaction in an ESL Class: Its Nature and Impact on Grammatical Development. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 2000. The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition Through Collaborative Dialogue. In Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, edited by Lantolf, J. (97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006. Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language Learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky, edited by Byrnes, H. (95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tan, L., G. Wigglesworth and N. Storch. 2010. Pair Interaction and Mode of Communication: Comparing Face-to-Face and Computer Mediated Communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 331: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y., and M. Swain. 2007. Effects of Proficiency Differences and Patterns of Pair Interaction on Second Language Learning: Collaborative Dialogue Between Adult ESL Learners. Language Teaching Research 11 (2): 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Lin, Po-Hung, Hung-Jen Chen, Kuo-Wei Su & Yen-Ju Chou
2024. Effects of display technique, background complexity, and target size on visual performance evaluation–A case study using the “Spot The Difference” game. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 100 ► pp. 103555 ff. DOI logo
Yan, Jing & Christine C. M. Goh
2024. Impact of task type and task complexity on negotiation of meaning in young learners of Chinese as a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Kim, YouJin, Bumyong Choi, Hyunae Yun, Binna Kim & Sujeong Choi
2022. Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research 26:6 ► pp. 1106 ff. DOI logo
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 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2021. Effects of task repetition with written corrective feedback on the knowledge and written accuracy of learners with different prior knowledge of the structure. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 464 ff. DOI logo
Lin, Po-Hung, Hung-Jen Chen & Zhi-Qian Wang
2021. Visual Performance Assessment of Videos—A Case Study of the Game “Spot the Difference”. Applied Sciences 11:16 ► pp. 7628 ff. DOI logo
Azkarai, Agurtzane & Marta Kopinska
2020. Young EFL learners and collaborative writing: A study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs, and task motivation. System 94 ► pp. 102338 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.