Cited by 199EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction?

Kim, YouJin, Tracy-Ventura, Nicole·2013·System

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Declarative knowledge can be acquired even with one encounter, whereas procedural knowledge acquisition necessitates repeated use of target knowledge and skills.

    “Declarative knowledge can be acquired even with one encounter, whereas procedural knowledge acquisition necessitates repeated use of target knowledge and skills.”

    From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2013

  • Acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge involves different learning processes.

    “Second, according to skill acquisition (DeKeyser, 2020) and retention theories (Kim et al., 2013), acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge involves different learning processes.”

    From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2013

  • Acquisition of procedural knowledge takes more practice opportunities than declarative knowledge.

    “Because the acquisition of procedural knowledge takes more practice opportunities than declarative knowledge (DeKeyser, 2020;Kim et al., 2013), only one block of six repetitions may not be sufficient to promote procedural knowledge, which makes it difficult to gain distributed practice effects.”

    From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N.
Affiliations
Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, YouJin
Venue
System
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
829-840
ISSN
0346-251X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2029346528
Cited by
199
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
39.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
System (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
task repetition, task-based language teaching, task-based interaction, Korean learners of English, collaborative tasks, syntactic complexity, speech rate, oral expression

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review