This study investigates the effects of two task factors (i.e. task complexity and task sequence) and an interlocutor factor (i.e. interlocutor familiarity) on Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ self-repair strategies during synchronous online task-based interaction. Four decision-making tasks were conducted to elicit oral interactions from 44 low-level proficiency EFL learners, who were required to complete the tasks in pairs in either a simple-to-complex sequence or a complex-to-simple sequence. Information about the learners’ familiarity with their partners was collected through interviews. Learners’ self-repair was analysed in terms of various recycling and replacement strategies. The results revealed that complex tasks facilitated learners in replacing items to solve problems, while the simple-to-complex task sequence enabled them to produce more self-repair by repeating or replacing items than the complex-to-simple task sequence. Interlocutor familiarity on its own did not influence the learners’ self-repair, but it had effects when combined with task sequence.
Abdi TabariM.ChoM. (2022). Task sequencing and L2 writing development: Exploring the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 27 April 2022. DOI: 10.1177/13621688221090922
2.
AllawE.McDonoughK. (2019). The effect of task sequencing on second language written lexical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. System, 85, 1–12.
3.
BadaE. (2010). Repetitions as vocalized fillers and self-repairs in English and French interlanguages. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1680–1688.
4.
BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (2014). An introduction to theory and research in task sequencing and instructed second language learning. In BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 1–46). Bloomsbury Academic.
5.
CaoY.PhilpJ. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493.
6.
DaoP.NguyenM.X.N.C.DuongP.T.Tran-ThanhV.U. (2021). Learners’ engagement in L2 computer-mediated interaction: Chat mode, interlocutor familiarity, and text quality. The Modern Language Journal, 105, 767–791.
7.
de JongN.VercellottiM.L. (2016). Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts. Language Teaching Research, 20, 387–404.
8.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
9.
FoxB.A.JaspersonR. (1995). A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In DavisP.W. (Ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 77–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10.
FoxB.A.MaschlerY.UhmannS. (2010). A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2487–2505.
11.
GalacziE.TaylorL. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15, 219–236.
12.
GilabertR. (2007a). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240.
13.
GilabertR. (2007b). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [+/– Here-and-Now]: Effects on L2 oral production. In MayoM.d.P.G. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Multilingual Matters.
14.
GilabertR.BarónJ. (2018). Independently measuring cognitive complexity in task design for interlanguage pragmatics development. In TaguchiN.KimY. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 159–190). John Benjamins.
15.
JohnsonM.D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38.
16.
KhatibM.FarahanyniaM. (2020). Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: Effects on L2 oral performance. System, 93, 1–12.
17.
KimD.R. (2020). Emergence of proactive self-initiated self-repair as an indicator of L2 IC development. Applied Linguistics, 41, 901–921.
18.
KimY. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658.
19.
KimY.TaguchiN. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677.
20.
KimY.TaguchiN. (2016). Learner–learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 42–57.
21.
KormosJ. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49, 303–342.
22.
KormosJ. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
LiuY.RenW. (2021). Task-based language teaching in a local EFL context: Chinese university teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044247
24.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
25.
MalickaA. (2020). The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 25, 642–665.
26.
NémethZ. (2012). Recycling and replacement repairs as self-initiated same-turn self-repair strategies in Hungarian. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 2022–2034.
27.
NuevoA.M.AdamsR.Ross-FeldmanL. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner–learner interaction. In PeterR. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 175–202). John Benjamins.
28.
O’SullivanB. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language Testing, 19, 277–295.
29.
OckeyG.J.KoyamaD.SetoguchiE. (2013). Stakeholder input and test design: A case study on changing the interlocutor familiarity facet of the group oral discussion test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 292–308.
30.
PloughI.GassS. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effect on interactional structure. In GassS.CrookesG. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 35–56). Multilingual Matters.
31.
PorterD. (1991). Affective factors in language testing. In AldersonJ.C.NorthB. (Eds.), Language testing in the 1990s (pp. 32–40). Modern English Publications, in association with The British Council.
32.
QuanL.WeisserM. (2015). A study of ‘self-repair’operations in conversation by Chinese English learners. System, 49, 39–49.
33.
RezaeiA.ValeoA. (2022). Investigating the impact of task complexity on uptake and noticing of corrective feedback recasts. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Epub ahead of print 26 January 2022. DOI: 10.1515/iral-2021-0115
34.
RobinsonP. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge University Press.
35.
RobinsonP. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
36.
RobinsonP. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In PützM.SicolaL. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243–268). John Benjamins.
37.
RobinsonP. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36.
38.
RobinsonP. (2015). The cognition hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In BygateM. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 87–122). John Benjamins.
39.
RobinsonP. (2022). The cognition hypothesis, the triadic componential framework and the SSARC model: An instructional design theory of pedagogic task sequencing. In AhmadianM.J.LongM.H. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 205–225). Cambridge University Press.
40.
RobinsonP.GilabertR. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–176.
41.
SchegloffE.A.JeffersonG.SacksH. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
42.
ZengS.EvansM. (2022). Self-repair in EFL learners’ speech in two contrasting institutional school settings in China: An activity theory informed analysis. System, 105, 1–16.
