Chapter published in:
Learning Language through Task Repetition
Edited by Martin Bygate
[Task-Based Language Teaching 11] 2018
► pp. 279–309

Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective

The case of a writing task

| Nagoya Gakuin University
| Kinjo Gakuin University
This classroom-based study explored the benefits of repeating a writing task over one year from the perspective of complex dynamic systems. The study specifically investigated how students’ use of self-regulation related to changes in L2 writing. Data were collected from 26 students in an EFL classroom at a university over 30 weeks. Students were engaged in a 10-minute timed-writing task on a chosen topic with immediate self-reflection every week. Students’ L2 compositions were analysed using fluency, syntactic and lexical measures, and their self-reflections written in L1 were analysed in terms of self-regulatory processes. The analysis of two focal students revealed that the first student showed more elaborate engagement and employed self-regulatory cycles of goal-setting and self-evaluation, which improved his L2 writing over time, while the second student with more limited engagement employed less elaborate self-regulatory processes, which reflected little change in his writing. Based on these cases, we contend that repeated encounters with tasks over extended periods create a valuable pedagogic environment, and within this context students’ agentic attitudes towards the L2 writing task are likely to influence their learning in significant ways.
Published online: 25 September 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.11nit
References

References

Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M.
(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, 15(1), 35–59.Google Scholar
Arevart, S., & Nation, P.
(1991) Fluency improvement in a second language. RELC Journal, 22(1), 84–94.Google Scholar
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B.
(1996) Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338.Google Scholar
Baba, K., & Nitta, R.
(2010) Dynamic effects of task type practice on the Japanese EFL university student’s writing: Text analysis with Coh-Metrix. Proceedings of the 23 International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS #2010), 217–222.
(2012) Dynamic effects of repeating a timed writing task in two EFL university courses. In P. M. McCarthy, & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied Natural Language Processing: Identification, Investigation and Resolution (pp. 398–413). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
(2014) Phase transitions in the development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning 64(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M.
(1987) The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M.
(2000) Handbook of self-regulation. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Boud, D., Keogh, R, & Walker, D.
(Eds.) (1985) Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breen, M.
(1987/2009) Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin, & E. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23–46). London: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Reprinted in K. van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.) (2009) Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 333–356). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bruner, J.
(1983) Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University 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 (pp. 136–146). Oxford: Macmillan.Google 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). London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2006) Areas of research 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 de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V.
(2005) Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrne, D.
(2009) Case-based methods: Why we need them; what they are; how to do them. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods (pp. 1–13). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Byrne, D., & Ragin, C. C.
(2009) The Sage handbook of case-based methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P.
(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. 173–194). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2011) Researching second language development from a Dynamic Systems Theory perspective. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 5–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.Google Scholar
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A.
(2011) Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533–568.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(2014) Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47(1), 80–91.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1997) SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19/1, 69–92.Google Scholar
Fukuta, J.
(2015) Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 321–340.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez–Torres, M. J., & Fernández–García, M.
(1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.
(1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z.
(2004) Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202.Google Scholar
Heckhausen, J., & Dweck, C. S.
(1998) Motivation and self-regulation across the life span. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2013) Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL context. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.). Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larsen–Freeman, D.
(2009) Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 579–589.Google Scholar
Larsen–Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
(2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation: Cambridge, MA: The MIT 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.Google Scholar
(2001) Effects of the benefits of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 141–162). London: 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.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M.
(2014a) The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing. Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. ELIA, 14, 13–41.Google Scholar
(2014b) The internal dimension of tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S.
(2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.Google Scholar
Nakata, Y.
(2016) Promoting self-regulation through collaborative work. Eurosla Yearbook, 16, 59–84.Google Scholar
Nitta, R., & Baba, K.
(2014) Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 107–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2015) Self-regulation in the evolution of the ideal L2 self: A complex dynamic systems approach to the L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 367–396). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518.Google Scholar
(2012) Epistemological diversity and moral ends of research in instructed SLA. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 206–226.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S.
(2016) Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.Google Scholar
Pinter, A.
(2007) Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 189–207.Google Scholar
Plough, I., & Gass, S.
(1993) Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effect on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 35–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J.
(2008) Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Storch, N.
(2008) Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.Google Scholar
van Geert, P.
(2011) The contribution of complex dynamic systems to development. Child Development Perspectives, 5(4), 273–278.Google Scholar
van Geert, P., & van Dijk, M.
(2002) Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior & Development, 25, 340–374.Google Scholar
van Lier, L.
(2000) From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–260). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) The ecology of semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
(2005) Case study. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 195–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Weigle, S. C.
(2006) Investing in assessment: Designing tests to promote positive washback. In P. K. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You (Eds.), The politics of second language writing: In search of the promised land (pp. 222–244). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J.
(1998) Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self- reflective practice (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B.
(2002) Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory and Practice, 41(2), 64–70.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. & Risemberg, R.
(1997) Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Amelohina, Victoria, Florentina Nicolás-Conesa & Rosa M. Manchón
2020.  In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 145 ff. Crossref logo
Baba, Kyoko
2020.  In Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 54], ► pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Bygate, Martin
2020. Some directions for the possible survival of TBLT as a real world project. Language Teaching 53:3 ► pp. 275 ff. Crossref logo
Fogal, Gary G.
2020.  In Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 54], ► pp. 271 ff. Crossref logo
Kim, YouJin, Bumyong Choi, Hyunae Yun, Binna Kim & Sujeong Choi
2020. Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882091235 ff. Crossref logo
Nitta, Ryo
2020.  In Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 54], ► pp. 133 ff. Crossref logo
PFENNINGER, SIMONE E.
2020. The Dynamic Multicausality of Age of First Bilingual Language Exposure: Evidence From a Longitudinal Content and Language Integrated Learning Study With Dense Time Serial Measurements. The Modern Language Journal 104:3 ► pp. 662 ff. Crossref logo
Schmitt, Diane
2020.  In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 357 ff. Crossref logo
Sánchez, Alberto J., Rosa M. Manchón & Roger Gilabert
2020.  In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 121 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 october 2020. 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.