Article published in:
Technology-mediated feedback and instruction
Edited by Hossein Nassaji and Eva Kartchava
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 170:2] 2019
► pp. 180–203

The role of task repetition and learner self-assessment in technology-mediated task performance

| Carleton University image/svg+xml
| University of Victoria image/svg+xml
This study examines the impact of task repetition on second language learners’ task performance and the mediating role of teacher feedback and learner self-assessment on oral performance. The study was conducted in a university-based English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program, where, as part of a course, intermediate proficiency learners (n = 52) were tasked with preparing and delivering a technology-mediated oral presentation (i.e., task) on a topic of their choice. First, they presented the task to the whole-class, reflected on their performance in terms of language and format quality, and received teacher’s feedback. Four weeks later, they produced a second recording and reflected on it again. A comparison group (n = 26) also delivered a presentation before a class but did it once, without reflection or teacher feedback. Both groups used technology to prepare, deliver, and document their presentations. The recordings were rated on six rubric-determined traits by the teacher and an independent rater, and the scores were compared between groups. To determine the effects of self-assessment, coupled with teacher feedback, on task repetition, learners’ written reflections and teacher’s comments were analyzed using discourse coding techniques. The results revealed benefits for task repetition and self-assessment during the performance of the same task for the experimental group, confirming the importance of task repetition in EAP contexts and the need for continuous and teacher-supported learner self-assessment in learner task performance and outcome.
Keywords: self-assessment, feedback, task repetition, technology, English for academic purposes
Published online: 06 August 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19013.kar
References

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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Task repetition in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(3), 380–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Airaisian, P. W.
(1997) Classroom assessment (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S.
(1989) The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6, 14–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baleghizadeh, S. & Derakhshesh, A.
(2012) The effect of task repetition and noticing on EFL learners’ oral output. International Journal of Instruction, 5(1), 141–152.Google Scholar
Blue, G.
(1994) Self-assessment of foreign language skills: Does it work? CLE Working Papers, 3, 18–35.Google Scholar
Bygate, M.
(1996) Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). Oxford, UK: Heinemann.Google Scholar
(1999) Task as the context for the framing, re-framing and unframing of language. System, 27, 33–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) “Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language”. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks. Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
(2006) Areas of work that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Uso-Juan & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 159–186). Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Introduction. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. & Brindley, G.
(2010) Assessment. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp. 247–267). London, UK: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Chen, Y.-M.
(2006) Peer and self-assessment for English oral performance: A study of reliability and learning benefits. English Teaching and Learning, 30(4), 1–22.Google Scholar
(2008) Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal case study. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 235–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cram, B.
(1995) Self-assessment: from theory to practice. Developing a workshop guide for teachers. In Brindley, G. (Ed.). Language Assessment in Action (pp. 271–305). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M.
(1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. & Ryan, S.
(2015) The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J.
(2005) CALL essentials: Principles and practice in CALL classrooms. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Falchichov, N.
(1986) Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 146–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forgas, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M.
(2009) The psychology of self-regulation: An introductory review. In J. P. Forgas, R. F. Baumeister, & D. M. Tice (Eds.), Psychology of self-regulation: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P.
(1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frawley, W. & Lantolf, J.
(1985) Second language discourse: A Vygotskyan perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 19–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-Garcia, M.
(1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549–581. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L.
(2014) Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In M. Gonzalez-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H.
(2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, M. L.
(2012) Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus to form. ELT Journal, 66(3), 327–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. & Shaw, P.
(2016) Introduction. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for Academic Purposes (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. & Tracy-Ventura, N.
(2013) The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41, 829–841. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kluger, A. N. & DeNisi, A.
(1996) The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W.
(1977) Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larson-Freeman, D.
(2003) Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2006) Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization: There is no end and there is no state. In Z.-H. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 189–200). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2018) Task repetition or task iteration? It does make a difference. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 311–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L.
(2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, M.
(2009) Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 769–782. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlewood, W.
(1999) Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, M.
(2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons Limited.Google Scholar
Lynch, T.
(2007) Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61(4), 311–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Perform, reflect, recycle: Enhancing task repetition in second language speaking classes. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 193–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T. & Anderson, K.
(1992) Study speaking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. & Maclean, J.
(2000) Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 221–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mennim, P.
(2003) Rehearsed oral output and reactive focus on form. ELT Journal, 57(2), 130–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Learner negotiation of L2 form in transcription exercises. ELT Journal, 66(1), 52–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K.
(1997) A study in self-assessment: Tutor and students’ perception of performance criteria. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 357–369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oskarsson, M.
(1989) Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications. Language Testing, 6(1), 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2001) Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 368–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 256–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Task-based language learning: A review of the issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saldaña, J.
(2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). London; Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sheppard, C. & Ellis, R.
(2018) The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated performance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 171–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1989) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P.
(1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stiggins, R. J.
(2001) Student-involved classroom assessment (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
Storch, N., Morton, J., & Thompson, C.
(2016) EAP pedagogy in undergraduate contexts. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for Academic Purposes (pp. 477–488). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taras, M.
(2001) The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 289–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 549–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P. & Foster, P.
(2011) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61, 37–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A. & White, G.
(2013) Technology enhanced language learning: Connecting theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G.
(1993) Exploring bias analysis as a tool for improving rater consistency in assessing oral interaction. Language Testing, 10, 305–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winke, P.
(2014) Formative, task-based oral assessments in an advanced Chinese-language class. In M. Gonzalez-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 263–293). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zeidner, M., Boerkaerts, M. & Pintrich, P. R.
(2000) Self-regulation: Directions and challenges for future research. In M. Boerkaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.749–768). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J.
(2001) Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and achievement (2nd ed.). In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar