Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Prompts were selected as the feedback type because several studies have demonstrated their effectiveness in fostering the acquisition of grammar structures.

“Prompts were selected as the type of feedback students received, because several studies have demonstrated their effectiveness in fostering the acquisition of grammar structures (Ammar, 2008;Ellis, 2007;Van de Guchte et al., 2015;Yang & Lyster, 2010).”

• cites Ammar, 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Ellis, 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Van de Guchte et al., 2015 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

The choice to use accuracy as a reflection of focus on form might have been too conservative to get a full insight into the effects of task repetition.

“Second, our choice to use 'accuracy as a reflection to focus on form' (Foster & Skehan, 1996, p. 280) might have been too conservative to get a full insight into the effects of task repetition.”

• cites Foster & Skehan, 1996 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

At posttest 1, there were no significant differences between conditions for metalinguistic knowledge, written accuracy, oral accuracy, or oral fluency on the two target structures.

“Results of the linear mixed model analysis showed no significant differences at posttest 1 for the two structures (MKT: t(230) = 1.73, p = .085;FITG: t(322) = 1.087, p = 2.78; Oral Accuracy: t(322) = .136,p = .892;Oral Fluency: t(322) = -.562,p = .575).”

May combine two claims.

On written accuracy and metalinguistic knowledge, the repetition condition outperformed the no-repetition condition on both the German dative and comparative structures.

“Results showed that on written accuracy and metalinguistic knowledge, the R condition outperformed the NR condition on both structures.”

May combine two claims.

At posttest 3, there was a decrease for both structures (Dative d = .88; Comparative d = .14).

“At posttest 3, we noted a decrease for both structures (Dative, d = .88;Comparative, d = .14).”

May combine two claims.

At posttest 3, three weeks after task repetition, the Repetition condition showed a decrease on both the Dative structure (d = .62) and the comparative structure (d = .91).

“At posttest 3 (3 weeks after task-repetition) the Repetition condition showed a decrease on both the Dative structure (d = .62)and the comparative structure (d = .91).”

May combine two claims.

From pretest to posttest 3, students of the Repetition condition on the dative task increased on speech rate by .18 and on articulation rate by .04.

“From pretest to posttest 3 students of the R condition, on the dative task, increased on speech rate by .18, on articulation rate by .04”

May combine two claims.

At posttest 2, for the Repetition condition, there was an increase for both structures with large effect sizes compared to the No-Repetition condition (Dative d = .92; Comparative d = .77).

“At posttest 2, for the Repetition condition, we observed an increase for both structures with large effect sizes, compared to the No-Repetition condition (Dative, d = .92;Comparative, d = .77).”

May combine two claims.

On the comparative task, students of the No-Repetition condition increased on speech rate by .60, on articulation rate by .22, and decreased on the number of silent pauses by .28.

“On the comparative task students of the NR condition increased on speech rate by .60, on articulation rate by .22,and decreased on the number of silent pauses by .28.”

May combine two claims.

On the comparative task, students of the Repetition condition increased on speech rate by .53, on articulation rate by .13, and decreased on the number of silent pauses by .34.

“On the comparative task students of the R condition increased on speech rate by .53, on articulation rate by .13,and decreased on the number of silent pauses by .34.”

May combine two claims.

On the dative task, students of the No-Repetition condition increased on speech rate by .23, on articulation rate by .10, and on the number of silent pauses by .01.

“Students of the NR condition, on the dative task, increased on speech rate by .23, on articulation rate by .10,and on the number of silent pauses by .01.”

The quote only partly states this claim.

No significant correlations were found between accuracy and other fluency measures.

“Further, no significant correlations were found between accuracy and other fluency measures.”

May combine two claims.

For the comparative structure, there was a decline at posttest 2 and an incline at posttest 3.

“For the comparative we observed a decline at posttest 2 and an incline at posttest 3”

May combine two claims.

Bygate (2001) found a strong effect for task repetition in increasing fluency and complexity but not accuracy, and this effect did not carry over to a new task.

“Results showed a strong effect for task repetition in increasing fluency and complexity but not on accuracy.This effect did not carry over to a new task.”

• cites Bygate, 2001Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Within each class, students were randomly assigned to the repetition and no-repetition conditions.

“Within each class students were randomly assigned to the Repetition (R) (n = 24) and No-Repetition (NR) (n = 24) condition.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The interlocutors administered the oral tests with a step-by-step plan to ensure that all tests were performed similarly.

“The interlocutors, all seated in different rooms, administered the tests with help of a step-by-step plan to ensure that all tests were performed similarly.”

May combine two claims.

The written dative test had Cronbach's alpha reliability of .70 at pretest, .90 at posttest 1, .92 at posttest 2, and .93 at posttest 3.

“Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) showed .70 for the pretest, .90 for posttest 1, .92 for posttest 2, and .93 for posttest 3.”

May combine two claims.

Gass et al. (1999) observed that task repetition led to greater overall proficiency, greater accuracy in morphosyntax, and lexical sophistication.

“Gass et al. observed that task repetition led to greater overall proficiency, greater accuracy in morphosyntax (trend towards more target-like production of the verb estar), and lexical sophistication.”

• cites Gass et al., 1999 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

To avoid retrieval of explicit knowledge of the structures, students performed the oral task first, followed by the written task and the metalinguistic knowledge test.

“In order to avoid the retrieval of explicit knowledge of the structures, students performed the oral task first followed by the written task (FITG) and the metalinguistic knowledge test MKT.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Both teachers held a Master's degree in teaching German language and literature and were trained in providing the feedback type prompts by means of a protocol and a training session.

“Both teachers held a Master's degree in teaching German language and literature and were trained in providing the feedback type prompts by means of a protocol and a training session.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The two groups were randomly assigned to the two teachers.

“The groups were randomly assigned to the teachers.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The beneficial effects of task repetition do not carry over to a new task.

“Since several studies have demonstrated that the beneficial effects of task repetition do not carry over to a new task (Bygate, 2001;Gass et al., 1999)”

• cites Bygate, 2001Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Gass et al., 1999 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The study did not measure complexity because the testing tasks were structured and focused on the use of the two target structures.

“We did not measure the complexity of the performance because the testing tasks were structured and focused on the use of the two target structures.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Thai and Boers (2015) found positive effects on fluency and concluded that the 4/3/2 sequence may not be the right format for achieving more accurate or complex performance.

“Results showed positive effects on fluency.Thai and Boers concluded that when teachers aim to achieve a more accurate or complex performance, the 4/3/2 sequence may not be right format and in addition learners should be provided with opportunities to modify their performance early in the task sequence.”

• cites Thai & Boers, 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Learners may need feedback on their initial performance for task repetition effects to carry over to new contexts.

“Ahmadian (2012) suggested that learners may need feedback on their initial performance (Sheppard, cited in Ellis, 2009b) for effects to carry over to new contexts.”

• cites Ahmadian, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Sheppard, cited in Ellis, 2009bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The written comparative test had Cronbach's alpha reliability of .66 at pretest, .66 at posttest 1, .72 at posttest 2, and .57 at posttest 3.

“Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was .66 for the pretest, .66 for posttest 1, .72 for posttest 2, and .57for posttest 3.”

May combine two claims.

Hawkes (2012) found an increase in form- and pronunciation-focused corrections and concluded that students paid more attention to form during the repeated task performance.

“Results showed an increase in the number of form and pronunciation-focused corrections.From these findings Hawkes concluded that students paid more attention to form during the repeated task performance.”

• cites Hawkes, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Inter-rater reliability for the oral accuracy ratings was 99% for the dative and 86% for the comparative.

“For both tasks inter-rater reliability was very high: 99% for the dative and 86% for the comparative.”

May combine two claims.

Bygate's (1996) single-learner study showed changes in complexity and grammatical variety and small gains in accuracy after repeating a narrative task.

“Analysis of the oral output showed changes in complexity and grammatical variety and small gains in accuracy.”

• cites Bygate, 1996Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The oral recordings were rated blind for condition for accuracy.

“The recordings were presented to a native speaker of German and the first author who rated them blind for condition for accuracy.”

May combine two claims.

German comparatives are a simpler structure for these learners because most forms follow a simple rule and their formation is similar to comparatives in Dutch.

“In contrast to the dative case, we consider German comparatives to be a more simple structure because (1) most comparative forms in German are composed by a simple rule: Attach -er to the adjective or adverb.”

• Also stated in: § 3 Target structures · plain

  “(2) the forming of German comparatives is realized similarly as comparatives in the L1 (Dutch).”

May combine two claims.

The German dative case after a preposition of place is complex for these learners because it requires several analytical steps and has no equivalent in Dutch, making L1-L2 transfer unlikely.

“We consider this structure complex because (1) learners have to undertake several analytical steps to arrive at the correct form (see Hulstijn & De Graaff, 1994); and (2) learners have no existing knowledge regarding the dative structure because it has no equivalents in Dutch.Transfer between L1 and L2 is therefore unlikely.”

• cites Hulstijn & De Graaff, 1994Not checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The dative is considered a highly reliable syntactic rule whose acquisition strongly depends on rule-based learning.

“the dative is considered a highly reliable syntactic rule, the acquisition of which - Hulstijn and de Graaff (1994) argue -strongly depends on rule-based learning.”

• cites Hulstijn and de Graaff (1994)Not checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The positive effects of task repetition can only be claimed for declarative knowledge but not for procedural knowledge of the target structures.

“Nevertheless, this can only be claimed for declarative knowledge but not for procedural knowledge of the target structures.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Since students already had exemplars of comparative structures in their long-term memory, retrieval was much easier and did not interfere with a fluent performance.

“Since students already had exemplars of comparative structures in their long-term memory, retrieval was much easier, and did not interfere with a fluent performance.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Students already had exemplars of comparative structures in their long-term memory.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Because learners knew that a private task performance in pairs would lead into a public performance, their attention was more focused on form and they were more attentive to error during actual task performance.

“They concluded that because learners knew that a private task performance in pairs would lead into a public performance, their attention was, to some extent, more focused on form and learners 'were more attentive to error during actual task performance' (Skehan et al., 2012, p. 174).”

• cites Skehan et al., 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The findings of this study may have an important implication for language pedagogy in a foreign task-based language learning context.

“For that reason, we argue that the findings of our study may have an important implication for language pedagogy in a foreign task-based language learning context.”

May combine two claims.

The study was carried out in real classrooms and task repetition was embedded in an ongoing program.

“A strength of the present study is that it has been carried out in real classrooms and that task repetition has been embedded in an ongoing program.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Learners may have knowledge of certain features, but they may not have acquired control over that knowledge.

“Gass et al. (1999), who comment that 'learners may have knowledge of certain features, but they may not have acquired control over that knowledge ' (p. 554).”

• cites Gass et al. (1999) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The study only had posttest data and no online data to measure the effects of task repetition.

“First, we only have posttest data and no online data to measure the effects of task repetition.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Not finding an effect in the oral measurement might be caused by how task repetition was operationalized in terms of a similar not an identical task and the interval of 2 weeks between the main task and the repeated task.

“Not finding an effect in the oral measurement might be caused by how we operationalized the task repetition in terms of (1) a similar not an identical task and (2) the interval of 2 weeks between the main task and the repeated task.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

More practice is needed to automatize these structures in oral performance.

“Possibly, more practice is needed to automatize these structures in oral performance.”