Cover not available
Part of
Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing
Edited by Heidi Byrnes and Rosa M. Manchón
[Task-Based Language Teaching 7] 2014
► pp. 107–136

Task repetition and L2 writing development

A longitudinal study from a Dynamic Systems perspective

Previous research has shown that repetition of a task improves L2 oral performance in terms of fluency and complexity (e.g. Bygate 2001). However, there is no clear evidence regarding the effects of task repetition and task-type repetition on L2 writing ability. Using a Dynamic Systems perspective, this study investigates longitudinally over a one-year period whether any noticeable changes are brought about through repeating a timed writing task. Forty-six first-year Japanese university students participated in this project for thirty weeks. Each week students wrote a composition on a chosen topic for ten minutes; the topic was changed every two weeks. A group-level analysis of 1300 compositions with five indices of fluency and syntactic and lexical measures shows that, while the effects of specific task repetition were limited, task-type repetition did have a marked effect on writing in terms of lexical and grammatical aspects. An individual-level analysis suggests that task-type repetition does not have an identical effect on student writing development in terms of linguistic features. Based on these findings, we suggest that the benefits of repeating the task may not show up in the short term but that repetition over an extended period would yield positive effects on students’ writing.
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.05nit
References (62)
References
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & Guilikers, L. (1996). CELEX . Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (2011). Dynamic effects of task type practice on the Japanese EFL university student's writing: Text analysis with Coh-Metrix. In P.M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation and resolution (pp. 398–413). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.D. (2008). The Bonferroni adjustment. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 12, 23–28.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). Oxford: Macmillan.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). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Norris, J.M., & Van den Branden, K. (2009). Coda: Understanding TBLT at the interface between research and pedagogy. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.) Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 495–499). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casanave, C.P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google 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, 12, 267–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an Activity Theory perspective. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 5–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duppenthaler, P. (2004). A study of the effect of three different types of feedback on writing: Part 2 – Data analysis. Tezukayama Gakuin Daigaku Kenkyu Ronju, Bungakubu [Tezukayama Gakuin University Studies and Essays, Faculty of Literature] 39, 1–27.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D.R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez–Torres, M.J., & Fernández–García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49 (4), 549–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R.T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.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, 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 579–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation . Boston, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M.D. (2005). Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic systems modeling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 169–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liao, M.-T., & Wong, C.-T. (2010). Effects of dialogue journals on L2 students' writing fluency, reflections, anxiety, and motivation. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 9, 139–170.Google Scholar
Long, M.H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R.D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T., & MacLean, J. (2001). Effects of the benefits of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 141–162). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Malvern, D.D., Richards, B.J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment . Houndmills: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R.M. (2011). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts: Lessons from research. In T. Cimasko & M. Reichelt (Eds.), Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices (pp. 44–64). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Manchón, R.M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In E. Alcón-Soler & M.P. Safont-Jordá (Eds.). Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–122). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Writing to learn in FL contexts: Exploring learners' perceptions of the language learning potential of L2 writing. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.,) Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 181–207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P.M., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Computational replication of human paraphrase assessment. In C.H. Lane & H.W. Guesgen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22 nd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 266–271). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P.M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peyton, J.K. (1990). Dialogue journal writing and the acquisition of English grammatical morphology. In J.K. Peyton (Ed.), Students and teachers writing together: Perspectives on journal writing (pp. 67–97). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.Google Scholar
Polio, C., & Williams, J. (2009). Teaching and testing writing. In M.H. Long & C.J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 486–517). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning . Houndmills: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, P., & Liu, E.T.K. (1998). What develops in the development of second language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19, 225–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31, 532–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L.B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A.Y.-P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Second language education: Practice in perfect learning conditions? In R. DeKeyser (Ed.). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 161–179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J.M. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 92, 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior & Development, 25, 340–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelder, T., & Port, R.F. (1995). It's about time: An overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In R.F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 1–44). Boston, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92, 214–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M.H., & van Dijk, M. (2011). Visualizing interaction between variables. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.). A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 85–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigle, S.C. (2006). Investing in assessment: Designing tests to promote positive washback. In P.K. Matsuda,. C. Ortmeier–Hooper, & X. You (Eds.), The politics of second language writing: In search of the promised land (pp. 222–244). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Weissberg, R. (1998). Acquiring English syntax through journal writing. College ESL, 8, 1–22.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfe–Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (25)

Cited by 25 other publications

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
Cui, Yachong & Shaoqian Luo
2024. “Writing-to-learn”: the influence of task repetition on CSL writers’ attention to form. Applied Linguistics Review 15:3 ► pp. 793 ff. DOI logo
Fogal, Gary G.
2024. Raising learner awareness of L2 writing spaces: supporting researchers, teachers, and learners through system mapping. Language Awareness 33:3 ► pp. 528 ff. DOI logo
Guerrero-Gomez, Janire, María Orcasitas-Vicandi & Marta Kopinska
2024. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 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
Mostafaei Alaei, Mahnaz & Abbas Mansouri
2024. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi & Seyyed Ehsan Golparvar
2024. The interplay of task repetition and task rehearsal in L2 written production across varied proficiency levels. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Abrams, Zsuzsanna
2023. Examining the role of peer collaborative feedback processing and task repetition in task-based L2 writing. In L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 59], ► pp. 109 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
Kheirzadeh, Shiela & Maryam Malakootikhah
2023. The Role of Content and Procedural Repetition in EFL Learners’ Reading Performance. Journal of College Reading and Learning 53:2 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud & Minyoung Cho
2022. Task sequencing and L2 writing development: Exploring the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Kim, YouJin, Bumyong Choi, Hyunae Yun, Binna Kim & Sujeong Choi
2022. Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research 26:6 ► pp. 1106 ff. DOI logo
Ajabshir, Zahra Fakher & Fatemeh Poorebrahim
2021. Assessing EFL learners’ written performance: The case of task repetition. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 39:3 ► pp. 295 ff. 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. Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal 49:5 ► pp. 568 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
Lázaro-Ibarrola, Amparo & María Ángeles Hidalgo
2021. Give me a second chance. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2 ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud
2020. Differential Effects of Strategic Planning and Task Structure on L2 Writing Outcomes. Reading & Writing Quarterly 36:4 ► pp. 320 ff. DOI logo
Levine, Glenn S.
2020. References. The Modern Language Journal 104:S1 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Vidal, Karina & Scott Jarvis
2020. Effects of English-medium instruction on Spanish students’ proficiency and lexical diversity in English. Language Teaching Research 24:5 ► pp. 568 ff. DOI logo
Butler, Yuko Goto
2017. Motivational elements of digital instructional games: A study of young L2 learners’ game designs. Language Teaching Research 21:6 ► pp. 735 ff. DOI logo
Amiryousefi, Mohammad
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 ► pp. 1052 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Child L2 Writers [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 32], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2024. 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.