The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use
Abstract
Previous research has considered the effects of content familiarity and task repetition on second language (L2) performance, but few studies have looked at the effect of these factors on learners’ engagement in task performance. This study explores the influence of content familiarity and task repetition on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ engagement in oral performance. Sixty EFL learners performed four narrative tasks with two familiar and two unfamiliar topics. They also repeated the same tasks to the same audience. Their oral production was analysed with various measures of behavioural and cognitive engagement. Stimulated recalls were collected from twenty-one participants to capture their emotional engagement. The participants were behaviourally and cognitively more engaged in tasks with familiar topics as well as having a more positive affective response to them. Repeating the tasks, however, negatively influenced behavioural and cognitive engagement, although the participants felt more relaxed and confident. In addition, the participants were more motivated to repeat unfamiliar topics, although they demonstrated more noticeable declines in their frequency of self-repair (an indicator of cognitive engagement) for these topics. These results provided empirical evidence for the relationship between task design and implementation factors and L2 task engagement. Teachers might base repetition decisions partially on learners’ familiarity with the topic.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Researchers can use supplementary queries as prompts to ensure that the interview stays on topic and delves deeper into the research questions, depending on participants' responses (Qiu and Lo, 2017;Qiu, 2020;Chu and Zhai, 2023).”
From A systematic review of Stimulated Recall (SR) in educational research from 2012 to 2022 (2024) · cites this paper as Qiu and Lo, 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Research on Student Engagement
(2012) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7 · Cited by 3,050
Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.20303 · Cited by 1,956
Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190515000094 · Cited by 752 · cited 7×
“Engagement refers to the ‘heightened attention and involvement’ (Philp & Duchesne, 2016, pp. 51) of learners during learning activities.”
BackgroundInfluentialExploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners
Kormos, J., & Dénes (2004) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001 · Cited by 679
Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008) · Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes · doi:10.4135/9781446279526.n4 · Cited by 201
Wang, Z. (2014) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.02wan · Cited by 164
Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production
Fukuta, J. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815570142 · Cited by 147
Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT
van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815609616 · Cited by 50 · cited 2×
“…Lo, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Room 655, Meng Wah Complex, Hong Kong SAR, China Email: yuenyilo@hku.hk concerning the selection and sequencing of tasks and have provided pedagogical suggestions for language teachers (Fukuta, 2016; Skehan, 2014; Van de Guchte et al., 2016).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- 10.1177/1362168816683563 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00012-4 · DOI
- 10.4135/9781446279526.n1 · DOI · Paper page
- Bui H.Y.G., 2014, Processing perspectives on task performance, 5, 63, 10.1075/tblt.5.03gav · DOI
- 10.1177/1362168816656650). · DOI
- Bygate M., 2009, Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honour of Susan M. Gass, 90
- 10.2307/3586498 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0272263198003015 · DOI
- Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
- 10.1177/026553229200900206 · DOI
- 10.1111/1540-4781.00204 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/applin/amp042 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0272263109990544 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00996.x · DOI · Paper page
- Holm S., 1979, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65
- 10.1075/lllt.34.04ch1 · DOI
- Lambert C., 2014, Task sequencing and instructed language learning
- 10.1017/S0272263116000085). · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1362168816683559 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00220671.2013.807491 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00220671.2013.807491 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00408.x · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263104261022 · DOI
- 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00060.x · DOI
- Maehr M.L., 1984, Motivation in education: student motivation, 1, 115
- 10.1177/1362168816683561 · DOI
- Raatz U., 1981, Practice and problems in language testing: Proceedings of the fourth international language testing symposium of the Interuniversitaäre Sprachtestgruppe, 113
- 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2167/la401.0 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02030.x · DOI
- 10.1075/tblt.5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0267190515000100 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0013164408323233 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_30 · DOI
Cited by
A systematic review of Stimulated Recall (SR) in educational research from 2012 to 2022
Zhai, X., Chu, X., Wang, M., Tsai, C.-C., Liang, J.-C., & Spector, J. M. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-02987-6 · Cited by 47
Proficiency pairing and engagement with language in L2 peer interaction
Zabihi, R., & Ghahramanzadeh, B. (2022) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2022.102725 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Qiu, X., & Lo, Y. Y.
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-12-25
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 681-698
- ISSN
- 1362-1688
- 1477-0954
- Cited by
- 128
- References
- 8
- Language
- en
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
- Funders
- Faculty Research Fund, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.