The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Functions of oral monologic tasks: Effects of topic familiarity on L2 speaking performance
Abstract
Tasks with different design factors may dissimilarly affect oral production, and thus can be adopted for different pedagogical purposes. However, the functions of task types are not fully explored. To address this gap, this study investigates the influence of content familiarity and task repetition on sixty English as a foreign language learners’ speaking performance, in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Participants twice performed four monologic tasks, and received stimulated recall interviews. The findings indicate that participants produced structurally more complex speech under familiar conditions, and increased their CAF in task repetition. Furthermore, content familiarity and task repetition may facilitate conceptualization. Task repetition may also direct participants’ attention towards lexical choices and grammatical encoding. Moreover, repeating unfamiliar topics effectively increased CAF. The findings suggest content familiarity and task repetition are two dimensions of topic familiarity, and that teachers might consider implementing task repetition when presenting unfamiliar topics to learners.
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, 2020
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
Speaking: From Intention to Articulation
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001 · Cited by 4,804
Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amp048 · Cited by 863
Exploring 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
TASK REPETITION AND SECOND LANGUAGE SPEECH PROCESSING
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000085 · Cited by 281 · cited 1×
“Lambert et al. (2016) argued that repeating the same tasks with the same content to different interlocutors increases fluency.”
BackgroundKim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005 · Cited by 199
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
Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form
Hawkes, M. L. (2012) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/ccr059 · Cited by 142
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 1×
“These results suggest exact task repetition directs L2 learners’ attention towards form (Van de Guchte et al., 2016).”
Result
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- 10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00012-4 · DOI
- Baker J., 2003, Essential speaking skills, 10.5040/9781350933958 · doi:10.5040/9781350933958
- 10.1177/1362168816656650 · DOI
- Bui H.Y.G., 2014, Processing perspectives on task performance: Volume 5, 63
- Bygate M., 2001, Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, 23
- 10.2307/3586498 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 · DOI · Paper page
- Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
- 10.1093/applin/13.1.1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/026553229200900206 · DOI
- Ellis R., 2003, Task-based language learning and teaching
- 10.1002/9781118271643 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/applin/21.3.354 · DOI · Paper page
- Guiraud P., 1954, Les caractères statistiques du vocabulaire [The statistical characteristics of vocabulary]
- Holm S., 1979, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65
- 10.2307/3587952 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0265532215595666 · DOI
- Kormos J., 2006, Speech production and second language acquisition
- 10.1075/tblt.2.06ch2 · DOI
- Lambert C., 2014, Task sequencing and instructed second language learning, 207
- 10.1515/applirev-2012-0009 · doi:10.1515/applirev-2012-0009
- 10.1017/S0272263104040033 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263104261022 · DOI
- Levelt W.J.M., 1999, The neurocognition of language, 83
- Long M.H., 2015, Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching
- 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00060.x · DOI
- 10.1075/tblt.4.06mal · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1987.tb00563.x · DOI
- 10.1177/1362168816683561 · DOI
- 10.1515/iral-2016-9995 · DOI
- Qiu X., 2018, Language Teaching Research, 21, 681
- Raatz U., 1981, Practice and problems in language testing: Proceedings of the Fourth International Language Testing Symposium of the Interuniversitäre Sprachtestgruppe, 113
- 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1075/tblt.2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1515/iral-2016-9991 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/applin/17.1.38 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1075/tblt.5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4324/9781315629766 · DOI
- 10.1075/lllt.11.12ske · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1515/iral-2016-9992 · 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Qiu, X.
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-02-13
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 745-764
- ISSN
- 1362-1688
- 1477-0954
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 9
- Language
- en
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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.