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.
AhmadianM.J.TavakoliM. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59.
2.
BiberD. (1988). Linguistic features: Algorithms and functions in variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BirdS. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635–650.
4.
BygateM. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In: WillisJ.WillisD. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). Oxford: Macmillan.
5.
BygateM. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3, 185–214.
6.
BygateM. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In: BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
7.
Bygate & Samuda (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In: EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
CronbachL.J.SnowR.E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington Pub.
10.
DateM. (2013). The effect of task repetition with noticing on proceduralization of linguistic knowledge. ARELE, 24, 109–124.
11.
De JongN.PerfettiC.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and procedualization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.
12.
DerwingB.L. (1976). Morpheme recognition and the learning of rules for derivational morphology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 21, 38–66.
13.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
EllisR. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In: EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15.
EllisN. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
16.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
17.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.
18.
FosterPTonkynA.WigglesworthG. (2000). Measuring spoken language: a unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.
19.
FujitaT. (2011). Does planning time improve learners’ spontaneous performance?ARELE, 22, 329–344.
20.
FukutaJ. (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), pp. 75–98. Osaka: “Kansai Chapter of” Japan Association for Language Education and Technology.
21.
FukutaJ.YamashitaJ. (2014). Interplay of two types of cognitive demands and attention orientation in L2 oral production. Unpublished paper presented at the AILA2014World Congress, Brisbane, Australia.
22.
GassS.MackeyA.Alvarez-TorresM.J.Fernández-GarcíaM. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.
23.
HeatonJ. (1997). Beginning composition through pictures. Harlow: Longman.
24.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
25.
HulstijnJ.H.HulstijnW. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.
26.
IzumiS.BigelowM. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239.
27.
KormosJ. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
28.
Larson-HallJ.HerringtonR. (2009). Improving data analysis in second language acquisition by utilizing modern developments in applied statistics. Applied Linguistics, 31, 368–390.
29.
LeveltW. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
LynchT.MacleanJ. (2001). ‘A case of exercising’: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In: BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 141–162). Addison Wesley Longman.
31.
McLaughlinB.RossmannT.McLeodB. (1983). Second language learning: An information processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135–157.
32.
PlonskyL.EgbertJ.LaFlairG.T. (2014). Bootstrapping in applied linguistics: Assessing its potential using shared data. Applied Linguistics, 35, 1–21.
33.
RobinsonP.J. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140.
34.
RobinsonP.J. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
35.
RohrerD.PashlerH. (2007). Increasing retention without increasing study time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 183–186.
36.
SachsR.PolioC. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 67–100.
37.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
39.
SkehanP.FosterP. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In: RobinsonP. (Eds.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SuzukiY.DeKeyserR. (2013). Distributed vs. massed practice: Individualizing treatments for the proceduralization of grammar knowledge. Unpublished paper presented at the annual conference of the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF)2013, Provo, UT, USA.
41.
TavakoliP.FosterP. (2008). Task design and second language performance : The effect of narrative. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.
42.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
43.
VermeerA. (2000). Coming to grip with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17, 65–83.
44.
YuanF.EllisR. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral presentation. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.
