This article reports on a systematic review of oral task repetition research carried out between 1996 and 2023. This review focuses on the methodological features of these studies, specifically on issues related to how tasks have been spaced and repeated within this body of research. This review starts with an overview of the concept of input spacing and the major methodological paradigms that have been used to investigate it across the psychological sciences. It then discusses task repetition, providing definitions and elaborations of theoretical models, discussing why spacing might influence task performance, and how this informs the synthesized research. The article then presents a synthesis of the methods and results of the 107 studies that have been analysed as part of the synthesis. The methodological synthesis includes analyses of how spacing has been implemented, the number of times tasks were repeated, and how researchers have justified their methodological decisions. The results of the synthesis highlight the need for greater systematicity and theoretical rationales for choice of spacing intervals, number of task repetitions, and transparency in reporting practices. The methods and results are discussed by identifying trends, exemplifying practices, and recommending solutions.
AhmadianM.J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task?The Language Learning Journal, 39, 269–280.
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, 35–59.
3.
AzkaraiA.García MayoM.P.OliverR. (2020). The effect of task repetition on the patterns of interaction of ESL children. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 171, 90–112.
4.
BeiX.G. (2013). Effects of immediate repetition in L2 speaking task: A focused study. English Language Teaching, 6, 11–19.
BuiG.YuR. (2021). Differentiating task repetition from task rehearsal. In RaoS.N.P.MukhopadhyayL. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching and assessment: Contemporary reflections from across the world (pp. 119–137). Springer.
7.
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). Macmillan Heinemann.
8.
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). Pearson Longman.
9.
BygateM. (2018). Introduction. In BygateM. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 1–15). John Benjamins.
10.
BygateM.SamudaV. (2005). Integrative planning and the use of task repetition. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). John Benjamins.
11.
BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Longman.
12.
DelaneyP.F.VerkoeijenP.P.J.L.SpirgelA. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. In RossB.H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 53, pp. 63–147). Academic Press.
13.
de JongN.PerfettiC.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.
14.
De JongN.TillmanP. (2018). Grammatical structures and oral fluency in immediate task repetition: Trigams across repeated performances. In BygateM. (Ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 43–73). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11
15.
DeKeyserR. (2018). Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from skill acquisition theory. In BygateM. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 27–41). John Benjamins.
16.
EllisR.ShintaniN. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
17.
EllisR.SkehanP.LiS.ShintaniN.LambertC. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
18.
FosterP.HunterA.M. (2016). When it’s not what you do but the way that you do it. In: TomlinsonB. (Ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 280–298). Routledge.
19.
FukutaJ. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20, 321–340.
20.
HeatonJ.B. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. Longman.
21.
HsuH.C. (2017). The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 38, 359–385.
22.
JohnsonM.D.Abdi TabariM. (2022). Task planning and oral L2 production: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 43, 1143–1164.
23.
KartchavaE.NassajiH. (2019). The role of task repetition and learner self-assessment in technology-mediated task performance. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170, 180–203.
24.
KhezrlouS. (2019). Task repetition and corrective feedback: The role of feedback types and structure saliency. English Teaching and Learning, 43, 213–233.
25.
KimY.PayantC. (2014). A pedagogical proposal for task sequencing: An exploration of task repetition and task complexity on learning opportunities. In BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 151–177). Bloomsbury Academic.
26.
KimY.Tracy-VenturaN. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction?System, 41, 829–840.
27.
KobayashiM. (2022). The distributed practice effects of speaking task repetition. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32, 142–157.
28.
KormosJ. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
LambertC.KormosJ.MinnD. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 167–196.
30.
Lázaro-IbarrolaA.HidalgoM.Á. (2021). Give me a second chance: Task repetition and collaborative writing with child EFL learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3, 275–299.
31.
LeveltW.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
32.
LiP.RogersJ. (2021). Task repetition in language learning: A bibliography. OSF Preprints.
33.
LongM.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
34.
MackeyA. (2020). Interaction, feedback and task research in second language learning: Methods and design. Cambridge University Press.
35.
ManchónR.M. (2014). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing. Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. ELIA, 14, 13–41.
36.
MatsumuraM.KawamuraK.AffricanoA. (2008). Narrative task-type repetition and changes in second language use in a classroom environment: A case study. 横浜国立大学教育人間科学部紀要. I, 教育科学 = Journal of the Faculty of Education and Human Sciences, Yokohama National University. The Educational Sciences, 10, 125–145.
37.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD.G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264–269.
38.
OswaldF.L.PlonskyL. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.
39.
PatanasornC. (2010). Effects of procedural, content, and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. ERIC document reproduction service number ED519953.
40.
PinterA. (2007). Some benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 189–207.
41.
RévészA. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.
42.
RogersJ. (2023). Spacing effects in task repetition research. Language Learning, 73, 445–474.
43.
SampleE.MichelM. (2014). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 31, 23–46.
44.
SatoM.LysterR. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.
45.
StrachanL.KennedyS.TrofimovichP. (2019). Second language speakers’ awareness of their own comprehensibility: Examining task repetition and self-assessment. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 5, 347–373.
46.
SunB.RévészA. (2021). The effects of task repetition on child EFL learners’ oral performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 30–47.
47.
SuzukiY. (2021). Optimizing fluency training for speaking skills transfer: Comparing the effects of blocked and interleaved task repetition. Language Learning, 71, 285–325.
48.
SuzukiY.EguchiM.De JongN. (2022). Does the reuse of constructions promote fluency development in task repetition? A usage-based perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 56, 1290–1319.
49.
SuzukiY.HanzawaK. (2022). Massed task repetition is a double-edged sword for fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 536–561.
50.
TranM.N.SaitoK. (2024). Effects of the 4/3/2 activity revisited: Extending Boers (2014) and Thai & Boers (2016). Language Teaching Research, 28, 326–345.
51.
WangZ. (2014). Online time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–62). John Benjamins.
52.
WiseheartM.KimA.S.N.KaplerI.V.Foot-SeymourV.Kupper-TetzelC.E. (2019). Enhancing the quality of student learning using distributed practice. In DunloskyJ.RawsonK.A. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 550–584). Cambridge University Press.
