A growing body of research has shown a positive role of task-supported instruction in second language (L2) learning (Ellis, 2003a; Loewen, 2015; Van Den Branden, 2006). From a pedagogical perspective, recycling or repeating parts of teaching materials is common practice and theoretical support for such practice is emerging (Bygate and Samuda, 2005). However, determining which aspects to repeat during task-supported interaction that fosters interaction-driven learning opportunities while maintaining student interest is currently underexplored. Further, few studies have considered learners’ perception during task completion. The current study thus examined the effects of task repetition on the production and resolution of language-related episodes (LREs) over time. English-speaking (first language, L1) students of Spanish (second language, L2) from two intact Spanish as a foreign language (FL) classroom (n = 28) were assigned to one of the following task repetition groups: task with repetition (same task/same content) or task with procedural repetition (same task/new content). Learner–learner interaction produced during two-way decision-making tasks were transcribed and coded for LREs. Learner perception data was collected following task completion and analysed qualitatively. The results indicated that the task repetition had greater benefits on the occurrence and resolution of lexis-based LREs, but that both groups benefited similarly in terms of producing and resolving form-based LREs. Results are discussed in light of speech processing models and pedagogical implications for task-based instruction in FL settings are examined.
AhmadianM.J.TavakoliM. (2010). 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.
Alegría de la ColinaA.García MayoM.D.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In: García MayoM.D.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Mutilingual Matters.
3.
BygateM. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language. In: BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Task-based learning: Language teaching, learning, and assessment (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.
4.
BygateM.SamudaV. (2005) Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In: EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5.
de la Fuente, M.J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10, 263–295.
6.
DouglasS.R.KimM. (2014). Task-based language teaching and English for academic purposes: An investigation into instructor perceptions and practice in the Canadian context. TESL Canada Journal, 31, 1–22.
7.
EllisR. (2003a). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
8.
EllisR. (2003b). Designing a task-based syllabus. RELC Journal, 34, 64–81.
9.
EllisR. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
10.
GassS.MackeyA. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In: VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). London: Routledge.
11.
GassS.MackeyA.Alvarez-TorresM.J.Fernandez-GarciaM. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.
12.
GilabertR.BarónJ.LlanesÀ. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 367–395.
13.
GohC.BurnsA. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
KimY. (2013). Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL Context. In: McDonoughK.MackeyA. (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 3–24). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
15.
KimY.McDonoughK. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners, Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
16.
KimY.PayantC. (2014). A pedagogical proposal for task sequencing: An exploration of task repetition and task complexity on learning opportunities. In: BaraltM.GilabertM.R.RobinsonP. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 151–177). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
17.
KimY.PayantC.PearsonP. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–33.
18.
LasitoStorchN. (2013). Comparing pair and small group interactions on oral tasks, RELC Journal, 44, 361–375.
19.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
20.
LeveltW.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
LoewenS. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
22.
LongM.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In: HyltenstamK.PienemannM. (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development (pp. 77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
23.
LongM. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
24.
LynchT.MacleanJ. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–250.
25.
MackeyA. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
MackeyA.AbbuhlR.GassS. (2013). Interactionist approach. In: GassS.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–24). New York: Routledge.
27.
NunanD. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
PatanasornC. (2010). Effects of procedural content and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA.
29.
PayantC.KimY. (2015). Language mediation in an L3 classroom: The role of task modalities and task types. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 706–729.
30.
PhilpJ.OliverR.MackeyA. (2006). The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34, 547–565.
31.
PinterA. (2005). Task repetition with 10-year-old children. In: EdwardsC.WillisJ. (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 113–126). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
PinterA. (2007a). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 189–207.
33.
PinterA. (2007b). What children say: Benefits of task repetition. In: Van den BrandenK.Van GorpK.VerhelstM. (Eds.), Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 131–158). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
34.
RévészA.SachsR.MackeyA. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and second language development. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 203–238). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
35.
RichardsJ.C.RodgersT.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. 3rd edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
RobinsonP. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37.
SampleE.MichelM. (2015). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 31, 23–46.
38.
SamudaV.BygateM. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14, 355–375.
41.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting?TESOL Quarterly, 37, 760–770.
42.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 1, 471–483.
43.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
44.
SwanM. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 376–401.
45.
TakimotoM. (2012). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1240–1253.
46.
TruongA.T.StorchN. (2007). Investigating group planning in preparation for oral presentations in an EFL class in Vietnam, RELC Journal, 38, 104–124.
47.
Van den BrandenK. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Van GorpK.BogaertN. (2006). Developing language tasks for primary and secondary education. In: Van den BrandenK. (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 76–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
50.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners, Language Teaching Research, 11. 121–142.
51.
WillisJ. (1996). The TBL framework. The task cycle. In: WillisJ. (Ed.), A framework for task-based language teaching (pp. 52–65). New York: Longman.
