Cited by 260EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningSecond Language Learning and Teaching

Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning

Lynch, Tony, Maclean, Joan·2000·Language Teaching Research

Abstract

Task-based methodology is particularly suited to teaching languages for specific purposes, because of its affinity to behavioural objectives. Doubts have been expressed as to whether learners actually learn language through doing tasks, and if they do, exactly what they learn. This paper reports the preliminary results of an ongoing study of the benefits of building repetition into a communicative task in an English for Specific Purposes course. We compare the performances of two learners at markedly different levels of English proficiency and find that both benefited from the opportunity to recycle communicative content as they repeated complex tasks. This suggests that task repetition of the type reported here may be a useful pedagogic procedure and that the same task can help different learners develop different areas of their interlanguage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/136216880000400303

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Across previous empirical studies, intervals between same-task repetitions vary considerably, such as massed, across a few days, weeks, or months.

    “Across previous empirical studies, the intervals between same-task repetitions vary considerably, such as massed (immediate) repetition (e.g., Lambert et al., 2017;Lynch & Maclean, 2000), across a few days (e.g., Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011;Gass et al., 1999;Kim & Tracy-Ventura, 2013), weeks (e.g., Fukuta, 2016), or months (e.g., Bygate, 2001).”

    From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Lynch & Maclean, 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Brown, G., 1986, Spoken language, 3
  2. Brown, G., 1984, Teaching talk
  3. Foster, P., 1997, Thames Valley Working Papers in ELT, 4, 38

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Lynch, Tony
Venue
Language Teaching Research
Published
2000-07
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
221-250
ISSN
  • 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0954
OpenAlex
W2100519114
Cited by
260
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 6
FWCI
12.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language Teaching Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Heart Association
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 › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
task repetition, task-based language teaching, English for specific purposes, interlanguage, learner proficiency level, communicative tasks

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