Because there has been little research on focus on form during the post-task phase in task-based language teaching, this experimental study investigates the effects of task repetition after having directed learners’ attention to form during the main task. The study comprises two interventions, where each consisted of a task with a focus on a particular language structure. Forty-eight ninth-grade students learning German as a foreign language were randomly assigned to two conditions: one group repeated a similar task (R); the other group did not (NR). The first intervention targeted the German dative case after a preposition; the second German comparatives. Pretests, immediate and delayed posttests measured metalinguistic knowledge, written and oral accuracy as well as oral fluency. Results showed that on written accuracy and metalinguistic knowledge, the R condition outperformed the NR condition on both structures. No significant differences between conditions were found on oral accuracy and fluency.
AhmadianM.J. (2012). Task repetition in ELT. ELT Journal, 66, 380–382.
2.
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, 23–49.
3.
AmmarA. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.
4.
AndersonJ.R. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: John Wiley.
5.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2007). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer v.4.5.24. [www.praat.org].
6.
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 Heinemann.
7.
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.
8.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
De JongN.H.WempeT. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 385–390.
10.
De JongN.H.SteinelM.PFlorijnA.F.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ.H. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 5–34.
11.
DeKeyserR. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514.
12.
DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
EllisR. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172 .
15.
EllisR. (2007). The differential effects of oral corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
EllisR. (2009a). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
17.
EllisR. (2009b). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
18.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
19.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–47.
20.
FosterP.SkehanP. (2013). Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency of L2 language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review69, 249–273.
21.
GassS.MackeyA.Alvarez-TorresM.J.Fernandez-GarciaM. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549−581.
22.
HawkesM.L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66, 327–336.
23.
HulstijnJ.H.de GraaffR. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–113.
24.
KimY. (2013). Effects of pretask modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 8–35.
25.
LeveltW.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
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). Harlow: Longman.
27.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
28.
MacroryG.StoneV. (2000). Pupil progress in the acquisition of the perfect tense in French: The relationship between knowledge and use. Language Teaching Research, 4, 54–82.
29.
QianL. (2014). The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance. In: SkehanP. (ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 129–154). London: John Benjamins.
30.
RiggenbachH. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423–441.
31.
SatoR. (2010). Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP and TBLT in the Japanese EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 32, 189–200.
32.
ShehadehA.CoombeC.A. (2012). Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
33.
SheppardC. (2006). The effects of instruction directed at the gaps second language learners noticed in their oral production. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand. In EllisR. (2009b). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
34.
SkehanP. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
35.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
SkehanP. (ed.) (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. London: John Benjamins.
37.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
38.
SwanM. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics26, 376–401.
39.
ThaiC.BoersF. (2015). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, accuracy and complexity. TESOL Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/tesq.232
40.
Van den BrandenK.BygateM.NorrisJ. (Eds.) (2009). Introduction. In: Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41.
Van de GuchteM. (2015). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
42.
Van de GuchteM.BraaksmaM.RijlaarsdamGBimmelP. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 246–262.
43.
WillisJ. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
44.
YangY.LysterR. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL students’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
