Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 3:1 (2020) ► pp.31–54

The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency

ORCID logo | Urmia University
This study explored whether the effects of task repetition in drawing learners’ attention to linguistic form could be reinforced through the provision of two types of unfocused direct written corrective feedback. Fifty-seven learners formed three conditions: (1) task repetition with no feedback (TR, control), (2) task repetition with error correction (TR+EC), and (3) task repetition with reformulation (TR+R). All groups repeated an identical writing narrative task but only the experimental groups received feedback after their initial task performance. All participants were then asked to complete a new task of the same type followed by a new task of a different type. Performance was gauged by multiple measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency. Results revealed the persistent superiority of the TR+EC condition on all measures of accuracy while the TR+R condition led to immediate written complexity improvement regarding subordination. Furthermore, both the TR+R and TR conditions resulted in delayed fluency gains.
Keywords: task repetition, written corrective feedback, error correction, reformulation, CAF
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Task repetition
    • 2.2Corrective feedback
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Design of the study
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Picture-cued writing narrative tasks
    • 3.4Essay writing task
    • 3.5Procedure
    • 3.6Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Complexity
    • 4.2Accuracy
    • 4.3Fluency
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 10 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe
References (58)
References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J., Mansouri, S. A., & Ghominejad, S. (2017). Language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of task repetition. ELT Journal, 71(4), 467–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Tests 2: Test pack. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Arroyo, D. C., & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, 68(4), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Direct versus indirect grammar feedback. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–8). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A.-M. (2019). Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 811, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.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). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 121, 267–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 1121, 155–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jong, C. A. M., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 191, 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 201, 405–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Task preparedness. In Z. D. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honor of Peter Skehan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashimi, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 361, 353–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frear, D. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y-H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 531, 24–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 31, 321–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 491, 549–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. English Language Teaching, 661, 327–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heaton, J. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Hsu, H-C. (2017). The combined effect of task repetition and post-task transcribing on L2 speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 172–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jung, Y-J., Kim, Y-J., & Murphy, J. (2017). The role of task repetition in learning word-stress patterns through auditory priming tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 319–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, E. Y., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 1–21.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 1031, 327–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Khezrlou, S. (2019a). Form-focused instruction in CALL: What do learners think? RELC, 50(2), 235-251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). Task repetition and corrective feedback: The role of feedback types and structure saliency. English Teaching and Learning, 43(2), 213-233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019c). Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khezrlou, S., Ellis, R., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System, 651, 104-116. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2014). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing: Implications for theory, research and pedagogy. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 141, 13–41.Google Scholar
Mehrang, F. (2016). The effect of task structure, task repetition, and reformulation on foreign language written performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
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). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 101, 277–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semke, H. D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 171, 195–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 177–199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. DOI logoGoogle 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), 103–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. London: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 371, 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”. ELT Journal, 511, 326–335. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 621, 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varnosfadrani, A., & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 371, 82–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (25)

Cited by 25 other publications

Cheng, Xiaolong, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Qiaozhen Yan
2025. Exploring teacher written feedback in EFL writing classrooms: Beliefs and practices in interaction. Language Teaching Research 29:1 ► pp. 385 ff. DOI logo
Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud, Sima Khezrlou & Yu Tian
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 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Sima Khezrlou & Yu Tian
2024. Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 62:2 ► pp. 871 ff. DOI logo
Imsa-ard, Pariwat & Jessie S. Barrot
2024. Combining multimodal technology-mediated and peer feedback: effects on second language (L2) learners’ complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) in writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Jeungeun (Claudia) & Shaofeng Li
2024. The effects of task repetition and corrective feedback on L2 writing development. The Language Learning Journal ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Jie
2024. Meaning-oriented understanding of L2 academic writing development with task-type repetition. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo
Papi, Mostafa, Mahmoud Abdi Tabari & Masatoshi Sato
2024. The importance of seeking feedback for benefiting from feedback: A case of second language writing. The Modern Language Journal 108:2 ► pp. 489 ff. DOI logo
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Sima Khezrlou & Hessameddin Ghanbar
2024. Task repetition versus task rehearsal: Understanding effects of task-readiness factors and elemental genres on L2 writing task performance. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Yang, Yi-Chun Christine
2024. EFL Learner’s Noticing of Corrective Feedback: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency. English Teaching & Learning DOI logo
Zhan, Ju, Qiyu Sun & Lawrence Jun Zhang
2024. Effects of manipulating writing task complexity on learners’ performance in completing vocabulary and syntactic tasks. Language Teaching Research 28:3 ► pp. 1011 ff. DOI logo
Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo
2023. Do task repetition and pretask focus on form instruction impact collaborative writing performance?. In L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 59], ► pp. 80 ff. DOI logo
Fukunaga, Tatsushi
2023. L2 writing development through two types of writing task repetition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:3 ► pp. 1109 ff. DOI logo
Fukuta, Junya, Yoshito Nishimura & Yu Tamura
2023. Pitfalls of production data analysis for investigating L2 cognitive mechanism. Journal of Second Language Studies 6:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Garcia-Ponce, Edgar Emmanuell, M. Martha Lengeling, Irasema Mora-Pablo & Lisa Marie Conaway Arroyo
2023. Use of WhatsApp as a Platform to Promote English Oral Fluency and Accuracy: A Task Repetition Approach. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura 28:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Masatoshi Sato & Yizhou Wang
2023. Engagement with written corrective feedback: Examination of feedback types and think-aloud protocol as pedagogical interventions. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Maedeh Davari
2022. Online Reformulation and Collaborative Feedback: Its Effect on EFL Learners’ Writing Performance during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Research in English Education 7:2 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Yamashita, Taichi
2022. The impact of one’s response to the teacher’s feedback on the same person’s and the partner’s learning in paired writing. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
Cheng, Xiaolong & Lawrence Jun Zhang
2021. Sustaining University English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Writing Performance through Provision of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback. Sustainability 13:15 ► pp. 8192 ff. DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2021. Learners’ Reflective Practice between the Repeated Performances of Tasks: Effects on Second Language Development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2021. Effects of task repetition with written corrective feedback on the knowledge and written accuracy of learners with different prior knowledge of the structure. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 464 ff. DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2021. Explicit instruction through task repetition: effects on explicit and implicit knowledge development. Language Awareness 30:1 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2023. Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:2 ► pp. 479 ff. DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2024. Effects of task repetition with consciousness-raising in wiki-mediated collaborative writing on the development of explicit and implicit knowledge. Computer Assisted Language Learning 37:1-2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2024. Effects of task repetition with grammatizing on oral task performance and knowledge development. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Zhang, Lawrence Jun & Xiaolong Cheng
2021. Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 54 ► pp. 101043 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 january 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.