Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 34:2 (2021) ► pp.464–493

Effects of task repetition with written corrective feedback on the knowledge and written accuracy of learners with different prior knowledge of the structure

ORCID logo
Previous task repetition studies have largely overlooked the second language learners’ development of linguistic knowledge as well as written accuracy. Furthermore, sufficient attention has not been paid to the role of written corrective feedback (WCF) in task repetition to reinforce attention to form. Moreover, studies exploring task repetition effects on learners with different prior knowledge of the target structure are rare. This study attempted to bridge these lacunas. Seventy-nine upper-intermediate learners in Iran were divided into four groups: task repetition with no feedback (TR), task repetition with metalinguistic feedback (TR+M), task repetition with direct feedback (TR+D), and task repetition with mixed direct metalinguistic feedback (TR+DM). All groups performed an error correction test that measured explicit knowledge, an elicited imitation test that tapped automatized explicit knowledge, and a picture-cued written production test that measured written accuracy. Participants performed a dictogloss task and received WCF before repeating the same task. Subsequently, they performed another dictogloss task with different content. Results revealed that the +Prior Knowledge learners in the TR+DM group gained explicit knowledge and proved slightly better than the TR+D regarding written accuracy. None of the groups, however, could develop automatized explicit knowledge.
Keywords: task repetition, written corrective feedback, written accuracy, knowledge development, prior knowledge
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Task repetition
    • 2.2Written corrective feedback
    • 2.3Second language knowledge development
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Target structure
    • 3.3Materials
    • 3.4Testing instruments
      • 3.4.1Elicited imitation test (EIT)
      • 3.4.2Error correction test (ECT)
      • 3.4.3Picture-cued production test
    • 3.5Procedure
    • 3.6Scoring scheme
    • 3.7Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Effects on accurate structure use during task performance
    • 4.2Effects on the target structure development
    • 4.3Effects on explicit and automatized explicit knowledge development
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 15 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.19054.khe
References (58)
References
Ahmadian, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful on-line planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15 (1), 35–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., Garcia Mayo, M. P., & Oliver, R. (2020). The effect of task repetition on the patterns of interaction of ESL children. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 171 (1), 90–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 1, 69–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12 1, 409–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19 1, 207–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (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: Longman.Google Scholar
(2018). Introduction. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book. New York: Heinle & Heinle.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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24 1, 16–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz, & R. Leow (Eds.), Implicit, explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, knowledge in SLA & bilingualism (pp. 35–47). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 1, 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19 1, 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Task preparedness. In Z. D. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honor of Peter Skehan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36 1, 353–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22 1, 307–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 1, 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 3 1, 321–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49 (4), 549–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. The Modern Language Journal, 64 (2), 216–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21 1, 421–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37 1, 13–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jung, S. (2013). The effect of task repetition and corrective feedback in L2 writing: A pilot study. MSU Working Papers in SLS, 4 1, 24–38.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Khezrlou, S. (2019a). Task repetition and corrective feedback: The role of feedback types and structure saliency. English Teaching and Learning, 43 (2), 213–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). Form-focused instruction in CALL: What do learners think? RELC, 50 (2), 235–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a). Training planning in second language narrative writing. ELT Journal, 74 (1), 49–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021a). Explicit instruction through task repetition: Effects on explicit and implicit knowledge development. Language Awareness, 30 (1), 62–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b). Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 568–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khezrlou, S., Ellis, R., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System, 65 1, 104–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 1, 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S., & Roshan, S. (2019). The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45 1, 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2014). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing: Implications for theory, research and pedagogy. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 14 1, 13–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Fulga, A. (2015). The detection and primed production of novel constructions. Language Learning, 65 1, 326–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehrang, F. (2016). The effect of task structure, task repetition, and reformulation on foreign language written performance. Unpublished doctoral thesis, the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Nguyen, B. T. T., & Newton, J. (2020). Learner proficiency and EFL learning through task rehearsal and performance. Language Teaching Research, 24 (5), 588–615. 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). Effect of procedural content and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Northern Arizona University, Arizona, USA.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (4), 227–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadeghi, K., Khezrlou, S., & Modirkhameneh, S. (2017). CALLing Iranian learners of L2 English: Effect of gloss type on lexical retention and academic reading performance under different learning conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 40 (1), 66–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41 1, 255–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, C. (2006). The effects of instruction directed at the gaps second language learners noticed in their oral production. Unpublished doctoral thesis, the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
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.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 177–199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23 1, 286–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64 (1), 103–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (2), 263–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67 (4), 747–790. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2008). Lexical learning through a multitask activity: The role of repetition. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 119–132). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156 1, 279–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62 1, 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rojlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2016). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research, 20 (3), 300–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (4), 321–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Khezrlou, Sima
2024. Effects of task repetition with consciousness-raising in wiki-mediated collaborative writing on the development of explicit and implicit knowledge. Computer Assisted Language Learning 37:1-2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 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.