Cover not available

Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 48:2 (2025) ► pp.350–381

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Effects of task repetition with grammatizing on oral task performance and knowledge development

ORCiD logo with link | University of Vienna
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Vienna.

Published online: 6 May 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.23031.khe
Abstract
This study compared the effects of task repetition only (TR), task repetition with grammatizing (TR+GR), and grammatization with no task repetition (GR) on 94 EFL learners’ oral task performances. Participants’ productions were measured both in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency as well as receptive knowledge (measured by an error correction test) and productive knowledge (measured by a sentence-level oral production test) development. Immediately after performing a narrative task, the TR+GR and GR learners were required to restore the target structure, namely the English regular past tense, which had been deleted in a grammatized text. Learners in the TR group received no grammatization, and only the TR+GR and TR groups repeated the same task twice. Results revealed that although both TR conditions led to enhanced receptive knowledge, the TR+GR performed better than the TR in fostering learners’ receptive knowledge and improving accuracy and productive knowledge at a delayed posttest. The GR group improved their receptive knowledge in the immediate posttest, but this improvement tailed off in the delayed posttest. Lastly, the TR+GR group could also improve the complexity and accuracy of their narrative task performances–albeit at the expense of fluency.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Task repetition
    • 2.2Post-task focus on form through grammatizing
    • 2.3The present study
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Research design
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Target linguistic form
    • 3.4Materials
      • 3.4.1Tasks
      • 3.4.2Grammatizing
    • 3.5Instruments
      • 3.5.1Error correction test (ECT)
      • 3.5.2Oral production test (OPT)
    • 3.6Procedure
    • 3.7CAF measures
    • 3.8Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Effects on receptive knowledge development
    • 4.2Effects on productive knowledge development
    • 4.3Effects on CAF
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Research question 1
    • 5.2Research question 2
    • 5.3Research question 3
  • 6.Theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
References (60)
References
Abdi Tabari, M., Khezrlou, S., & Tian, Y. (2024). Verb argument construction complexity indices and L2 written production: Effects of task complexity and task repetition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 18(1), 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J., Mansouri, S. A., & Ghominejad, S. (2017). Language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of task repetition. ELT Journal, 71(4), 467–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Tests 2: Test pack. Oxford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amiryousefi, M. (2016). The differential effects of two types of task repetition on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: A focus on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1052–1068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1999). Task as the context for the framing, re-framing and unframing of language. System, 27(1), 33–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Pearson Publication.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Introduction. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 1–25). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2006). Paralinguistic focus on form. TESOL Quarterly, 401, 841–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Non-reciprocal tasks, comprehension and second language acquisition. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 49–74). Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 191, 221–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 201, 405–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Task preparedness. In Z. D. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honor of Peter Skehan (pp. 15–38). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 339–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 31, 321–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garcia Mayo, M. P., Imaz Agirre, A., & Azkarai, A. (2018). Task repetition effects on CAF in EFL child task-based interaction. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. P. Garcia Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 11–28). DeGruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549–581. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godfroid, A. (2016). The effects of implicit instruction on implicit and explicit knowledge development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 177–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, X. (2007). Explicit knowledge of the Spanish subjunctive and accurate use in discrete-point, oral production, and written production measures. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 1–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66(3), 327–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heaton, J. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Indrarathne, B. (2013). Effects of task repetition on written language production in task-based language teaching [Paper presentation]. Lancaster University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kartchava, E., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The role of task repetition and learner self-assessment in technology-mediated task performance. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 180–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khezrlou, S. (2023b). The role of task-supported language teaching in the development of explicit and automatized explicit knowledge and learners’ task engagement: Does practice meet perceptions? Language Awareness, 32(3), 387–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023a). Repeated academic writing with synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback: How are macro and micro aspects affected? In J. Qin & P. Stapleton (Eds.), Using technology in second language writing: Composing, pedagogy, assessment and research. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021b). Explicit instruction through task repetition: Effects on explicit and implicit knowledge development. Language Awareness, 30(1), 62–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021a). Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 568–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Task repetition and corrective feedback: The role of feedback types and structure saliency. English Teaching and Learning, 43(2), 213–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y. J. (2013). Effects of pre-task modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 471, 8–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y. J., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2022). Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26(6). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 411, 829–840. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Philp, J., & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in L2 task performance. Language Teaching Research, 211, 665–680. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The Emergence of Complexity, Fluency, and Accuracy in the Oral and Written Production of Five Chinese Learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2017). The BNC/COCA Level 6-word family lists (Version 1.0.0) [Data file]. Available from [URL]
Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2014). Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing (pp. 107–136). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nitta, Ryo & Kyoko Baba. 2018. Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective. The case of a writing task. In Martin Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 285–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patanasorn, C. (2010). Effect of procedural content and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. [Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, the USA].
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 21–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sánchez, A. J., Manchón, R. M., & Gilabert, R. (2020). The effects of task repetition across modalities and proficiency levels. In R. M Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 121–143). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheppard, C. (2006). The effects of instruction directed at the gaps second language learners noticed in their oral production. [Doctoral dissertation, the University of Auckland, New Zealand].
Sheppard, C., & Ellis, R. (2018). The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated performance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 177–199). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2017). The effects of the timing of isolated FFI on the explicit knowledge and written accuracy of learners with different prior knowledge of the linguistic target. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 129–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 231, 286–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, and assessment. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2008). Lexical learning through a multitask activity: The role of repetition. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 119–132). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rojlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2016). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 300–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Khezrlou, Sima & Christiane Dalton-Puffer
2025. Pre-task planning in CLIL classrooms. Language Teaching for Young Learners DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima & Glenn Stockwell
2025. A Synthetic Review of MALL Research: Artifact, Environment, and Task. Digital Studies in Language and Literature DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue