Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production
Open accessAbstract
Task repetition facilitates learners’ performance, at least temporarily: Since learners are already familiar with the content of the task at the initial enactment, they are capable of focusing their attention on linguistic form during the following enactment. However, the analysis in previous studies treated various aspects of ‘form’ as one package. This study examined learners’ attention shifts during repeated task engagement by methodological triangulation. The experiment required 28 Japanese learners of English to perform narrative tasks twice. Learners’ performance was analysed, and the protocol data elicited by stimulated recall were coded along their attention orientations. The result partially supported the form-focused effects of task repetition: learners focused more on the syntactic encoding process and less on the conceptualizing process at the second task enactment when they engaged in the same task twice. Possible theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
When L2 learners repeat the same task, they can free up attentional resources for conceptualization and use these additional resources for formulating accurate and fluent speech at a subsequent performance.
“First, when L2 learners repeat the same task (e.g., oral narrative), they can free up their attentional resources for conceptualization (e.g., generating the content of speech) and use these additional resources for formulating accurate and fluent speech involving linguistic encoding and articulation at a subsequent performance (Bygate, 1996;Fukuta, 2016).”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Fukuta, 2016
The Background says that familiarity with a task’s content frees attentional resources for formulating language on the second performance. The Discussion reports improved accuracy, but the Performance Analysis found no statistically significant improvement in fluency. Thus, the source supports the proposed shift from content to form and the accuracy component, not an improvement in fluent speech. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Task-based Language Learning and Teaching
Ellis, R. (2003) · Asian Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.65961/ajelt-2003-1-009 · Cited by 3,601 · see citing works
The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language Performance
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100015047 · Cited by 1,147 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The priorities are considered to be manipulable by repetition, pre-task planning, and manipulating the task takers’ familiarity and strength of tasks’ story line (e.g. Bygate, 1996, 1999; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 1999; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodAT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE
Ellis, N. C. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226310505014x · Cited by 893 · cited 2× · see citing works
“However, a temporal increase in learner performance alone, such as in complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF), cannot prove L2 acquisition or improvement of the interlanguage system, as R. Ellis (2005) argues.”
BackgroundSECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: AN INFORMATION‐PROCESSING PERSPECTIVE<sup>1</sup>
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00532.x · Cited by 348 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Skehan (1998), and Skehan and Foster (2001) also argue that cognitive demands on content result in less attention being available to be devoted to the language because simultaneously focusing attention on meaning and form results in cognitive overload for L2 learners (McLaughlin et al., 1983; VanPatten, 1990).”
Backgroundde Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Increasing Retention Without Increasing Study Time
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2007) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00500.x · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Biber, D. (1988) Linguistic features: algorithms and functions in variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Willis, J., & Willis, D. (eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 136-146). Oxford, Inglaterra: MacMillan.
- 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.
- Bygate & Samuda (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 37-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Derwing, B. L. (1976). Morpheme recognition and the learning of rules for derivational morphology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 21, 38-66.
- Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Foster, P, Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: a unit for all reasons. Applied linguistics, 21, 354-375. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.3.354 · DOI
- Fukuta, J. (2014). Measuring attention to linguistic form in a second language during speech production: A review and proposal for empirical study. Reports of 2013 Studies in Japan Association for Language Education and Technology, Kansai Chapter, Methodology Special Interest Groups (SIG), 75-98.
- 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. doi:10.1111/0023- 8333.00102 · DOI · Paper page
- Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65-70.
- Hulstijn, J. H., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23-43. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 1770.1984.tb00994.x · DOI
- Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does Output Promote Noticing and Second Language Acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239. doi:10.2307/3587952 · DOI
- Larson-Hall, J., & Herrington, R. (2009). Improving Data Analysis in Second Language Acquisition by Utilizing Modern Developments in Applied Statistics. Applied Linguistics, 31, 368-390. doi:10.1093/applin/amp038 · DOI
- Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and Tasks. In P. Robinson (eds.), Cognition and Second language acquisition (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2013). Distributed vs. massed practice: individualizing treatments for the proceduralization of grammar knowledge. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF) 2013, Provo, Utah.
- VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301. doi:/10.1017/S0272263100009177 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2018) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.11.11nit · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Suzuki, Y. (2021) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12433 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT
Suzuki, Y., & Hanzawa, K. (2022) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263121000358 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“…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).”
Background
- Authors
- Fukuta, J.
- Affiliations
- Nagoya University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Fukuta, Junya
- ORCID
- Fukuta, Junya
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-02-17
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 321-340
- ISSN
- 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0954
- OpenAlex
- W2050414456
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 42.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Language Teaching Research (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (13J00724)
- 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, attentional orienting, second language speaking, form-focused instruction, syntactic encoding, narrative task, Japanese learners of English, stimulated recall
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
