Cover not available
Article published In:
Research on EFL learning by young children in Spain
Edited by María del Pilar García Mayo
[Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2] 2021
► pp. 275–299

Give me a second chance

Task repetition and collaborative writing with child EFL learners

| Public University of Navarre, Institute for Advanced Social Research (I-COMMUNITAS)
| Public University of Navarre, Institute for Advanced Social Research (I-COMMUNITAS)

Collaborative writing (CW) and task repetition have been claimed to aid language acquisition. Students produce better texts when writing with a peer and their drafts improve if they write the same composition twice (same task repetition, STR). However, little is known about young learners, about the effects of combining both constructs and, finally, about a more common type of repetition in language lessons: repeating the same procedure with different content (procedural task repetition, PTR). This study analyses the effects of CW (vs. individual writing) and of PTR (vs. STR). To do so, the writings of 59 Spanish young learners (aged 11) of English divided into four groups were analysed. Two of these groups (N = 9, N = 10) wrote a composition individually while two (N = 20, N = 20) wrote a composition in pairs. A week later, one individual (N = 9) and one collaborative group (N = 20) wrote the same composition again (STR) while the other individual (N = 10) and collaborative (N = 20) groups wrote a new composition following the same procedure (PTR). Unlike findings from adult learners, our students’ drafts show no differences that could be attributed to the collaboration. However, some improvements upon repetition were hinted at, with students in the STR group obtaining greater holistic rates.

Keywords: young learners, EFL, writing, procedural task repetition, same task repetition, collaborative writing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature background
    • 2.1Collaborative writing
    • 2.2Task repetition
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Research questions and hypothesis
    • 3.2Participants and setting
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Coding and analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Quantitative analyses: Complexity
    • 4.2Quantitative analyses: Fluency
    • 4.3Quantitative analyses: Accuracy
    • 4.4Qualitative analysis
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 27 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20009.laz
References
Abrams, Z., & Byrd, D. R.
(2017) The effects of meaning-focused pre-tasks on beginning-level L2 writing in German: An exploratory study. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 434–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, J.
(2008) Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection. Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243–265). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Amiryousefi, M.
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
(2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A. M.
(2018) Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 811, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle 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: Macmillan Heinemann.Google Scholar
(2018) Introduction. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambridge English
(2014) Young learners. Young learners English tests (YLE). Sample Papers. Flyers. Practice Test 3. (p. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2014) Young learners. Young learners English tests (YLE). Sample Papers. Flyers. Volume 11 (p. 36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J.
(2014) Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Dobao, A. F.
(2012) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and Individuals work. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(1), 40–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P.
(2002) Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 371, 323–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A.
(2016) EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Research agenda and pedagogical potential (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A.
(2016) Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. Language Learning Journal, 441, 451–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., Imaz Agirre, A., & Azkarai, A.
(2018) Task repetition effects on CAF in EFL child task-based interaction. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. P. García Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 11–28). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, M. A., & García Mayo, M. P.
(2019) The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, M. A., & Lázaro-Ibarrola, A.
(2020) Task repetition and collaborative writing by EFL children: Beyond CAF measures. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 501–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2013) Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 471, 8–35. DOI logoGoogle 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, 411, 829–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J.
(2014) Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A.
(2012) The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Hidalgo, M. A.
(2017) Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(2), 183–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A.
(2007) Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M.
(2006) Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 169–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M.
(2011) Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing: Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 141, 13–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & García Fuentes, C.
(2015) The effect of writing task and task conditions on Colombian EFL learners’ language use. TESL Canada Journal, 321, 67–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., de Vleeschauwer, J., & Crawford, W.
(2018) Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System, 741, 109–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J.
(2010) Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nitta, R., & Baba, K.
(2014) Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing (pp. 107–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patanasorn, C.
(2010) Effects of procedural content and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S.
(2006) Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 301–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinter, A.
(2006) Verbal evidence of task related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 241, 615–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10 year-old children practicing with a communicative task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 189–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Children learning second languages. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A.
(2011) Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 201, 286–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 141, 153–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Collaborative writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 387–406). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
(2007) Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Swain, M.
(2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B.
(1994) Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. A course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Teng, M. F.
(2017) The effectiveness of group, pair and individual output tasks on learning phrasal verbs. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 187–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M.
(2017) The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 671, 394–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N.
(2009) Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zalbidea, J.
(2017) One task fits all’? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 1011, 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar