Cover not available
Part of
Learning Language through Task Repetition
Edited by Martin Bygate
[Task-Based Language Teaching 11] 2018
► pp. 143–169

Chapter 6
Effects of task type, task-type repetition, and performance criteria on L2 oral production

| Nanjing Medical University, China
This study investigates the impact of task type, task-type repetition, and performance criteria on oral second language production. One hundred and forty-four Chinese learners of English were randomly paired and assigned to either a map task or a picture-story task. Each task type was repeated a week later via a different exemplar. Each experimental group was then further divided between “high” and “low” performance criterion groups, and a control group (CG). Both the high criterion (HC) and the low criterion (LC) groups were informed at the outset that they would be asked to perform an additional activity upon completion of the baseline task. The HC speakers undertook a more demanding post-task activity and the LC group a less demanding one, with no extra post-task requirement for the CG. Analysing participants’ language production in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency, a strong effect for task type was observed. Task-type repetition resulted in greater accuracy and affected all fluency measures (though not all in the same direction). Finally, the high criterion condition was positively related to phrasal complexity and fluency on both task types, but negatively associated with subordination complexity on the picture-story task, findings not attested in previous studies. Results are discussed in terms of the limited attentional resources model on second language performance. The study contributes to our understanding of how pre-specified task performance criteria can affect students’ performance of a task.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Task type
    • Task rehearsal
    • Task performance criteria
    • The study
  • Independent variables
    • Task type
    • Task-type repetition
    • Task performance criteria
  • Research questions
  • Method
    • Design
  • Dependent variables
    • Complexity measures
    • Accuracy measure
    • Fluency measures
  • Participants
  • Data collection and coding
  • Statistical analyses
  • Results
  • Task type
  • Task-type repetition
  • Performance criteria
  • Discussion
    • Task type and language production
    • Task-type repetition and language production
    • Performance criteria and language production
    • The interaction between task and condition
    • The added value of the HC criterion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • References
Published online: 25 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.06hu
References (49)
References
Allwright, R. L., Woodley, M. P., & Allwright, J. M. (1988). Investigating reformulation as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 236–256.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Appel, G., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994) Speaking as mediation: A study of L1 and L2 text recall tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 437–452.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a Lexical Approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: An approach based on the analysis of conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. (2000). Accuracy and fluency: The basic polarity. Reprinted in Riggenbach, H. (Ed.). (2000). Perspectives on Fluency (pp. 61–73). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.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. Oxford: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
(1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185–214.DOI logoGoogle 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: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In J. M. L. L. B. Resnick & S. D. Teasley (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54(4), 655–679.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, S., Avery, P., & Yorio, C. (1989). Discourse structure and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 397–414.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., 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
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Longan, G. D. (1988). Towards an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 221–250.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). “A case of exercising”: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 141–162). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Kanganas, A. P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 285–312.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2000). The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 163–199). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Plough, I., & Gass, S. M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45(1), 99–140.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL, 43, 1–32.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 11–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1980). A comparative analysis of oral narrative strategies: Athenian Greek and American English. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories (pp. 51–87). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35(3), 373–403.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., & Parrish, B. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language Learning, 38(1), 21–44.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85–106.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1997). Studying language use as collaboration. In G. K. E. Kellerman (Ed.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 238–274). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Donate, Ángela & Ronald P. Leow
2024. Chapter 4. Task complexity, task features, and task anxiety at low L2 proficiency levels. In Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching [Task-Based Language Teaching, 16], ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Jeungeun (Claudia) & Shaofeng Li
2024. The effects of task repetition and corrective feedback on L2 writing development. The Language Learning Journal ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mostafaei Alaei, Mahnaz & Abbas Mansouri
2024. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2023. Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:2 ► pp. 479 ff. DOI logo
Santos, Sara
2023. Efeitos da repetição procedimental e da complexidade cognitiva da tarefa no desempenho oral em português língua estrangeira: estudo exploratório . Diacrítica 36:2 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Hidalgo, María 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 ► pp. 565 ff. DOI logo
Amelohina, Victoria, Florentina Nicolás-Conesa & Rosa M. Manchón
2020. Chapter 7. Effects of task repetition with the aid of direct and indirect written corrective feedback. In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Sánchez, Alberto J., Rosa M. Manchón & Roger Gilabert
2020. Chapter 6. The effects of task repetition across modalities and proficiency levels. In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.