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.
AppletonJ.J.ChristensonS.L.FurlongM.J. (2008). Student engagement with school: critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386.
2.
AubreyS. (2017). Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 21, 717–734.
3.
BabaiiE.AnsaryH. (2001). The C-test: a valid operationalization of reduced redundancy principle. System, 29, 209–219.
4.
BarnesD. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In MercerN.HodgkinsonS. (Eds), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1–16). London: Sage.
5.
BuiH.Y.G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance, Volume 5 (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
6.
BuiG.HuangZ. (2016, in press). L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: performance, measurement, and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 8July2016 (doi: 10.1177/1362168816656650).
7.
BygateM.SamudaV. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: the joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interaction approach. In MackeyA.PolioC. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honour of Susan M. Gass (pp. 90–116). New York: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.
8.
CarrellP.L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461–481.
9.
CarrellP.L.WiseT.E. (1998). The relationship between prior knowledge and topic interest in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 285–309.
10.
ChristensonS.L.ReschlyA.L.WylieC. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
DörnyeiZ.KatonaL. (1992). Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL learners. Language Testing, 9, 187–206.
13.
EgbertJ. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 499–518.
14.
EllisR. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
15.
EllisR. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
16.
FukutaJ. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20, 321–340.
17.
GassS.VaronisM. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-native speech. Language Learning, 34, 65–87.
18.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
19.
KimY. (2013). Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL context. In McDonoughK.MackeyA. (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20.
KormosJ.DénesM. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164.
21.
LambertC.RobinsonP. (2014). Learning to perform narrative tasks in the L2 classroom: a semester-long study of task sequencing effects. In BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed language learning. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
22.
LambertC.KormosJ.MinnD. (2016). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 18March2016 (doi: 10.1017/S0272263116000085).
23.
LambertC.PhilpJ.NakamuraS. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second
language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680.
24.
LeeJ. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality. The Journal of Educational Research, 107, 177–185.
25.
LeeJ. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality. The Journal of Educational Research, 107, 177–185.
26.
LeeserM.J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270.
27.
LeowP.R.Morgan-ShortK. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: the issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35–57.
28.
MackeyA.KanganasA.P.OliverR. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 285–312.
29.
MaehrM.L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: toward a theory of personal investment. In AmesR.E.AmesC. (Eds), Motivation in education: student motivation, Volume 1 (pp. 115–144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30.
MercerN.DawesL. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In MercerN.HodgkinsonS. (Eds), Exploring talk in school (pp. 55–72). London: Sage.
31.
PhilpJ.DuchesneS. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
32.
PhungL. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 751–766.
33.
RaatzU.Klein-BraleyC. (1981). The C-test: A modification of the cloze procedure. In CulhaneT.Klein-BraleyC.StevensonD.K. (Eds.), Practice and problems in language testing: Proceedings of the fourth international language testing symposium of the Interuniversitaäre Sprachtestgruppe (pp. 113–138). Colchester: The University of Essex.
34.
ReeveJ. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In ChristensonS.L.ReschlyA.L.WylieC. (Eds), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York: Springer.
35.
RévészA.HanZ. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15, 160–179.
36.
Schmidt-RinehartB.C. (1994). The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 179–189.
37.
SkehanP. (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38.
SkehanP. (2016). Tasks versus conditions: two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34–49.
39.
SkinnerE.A.KindermannT.A.FurrerC. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffections: conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525.
40.
Van de GuchteM.BraaksmaM.RijlaarsdamG.BimmelP. (2016). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Research Teaching, 20, 300–320.
41.
WangZ. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42.
WoltersC.A.TaylorD.J. (2012). A self-regulated learning perspective on student engagement. In ChristensonS.L.ReschlyA.L.WylieC. (Eds), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 635–651). New York: Springer.
