Are EFL Writers Motivated or Demotivated by Model Texts and Task Repetition? Evidence from Young Collaborative Writers

Studies on multi-stage writing tasks with adults and children have shown that model texts and task repetition aid language acquisition, especially when learners work in collaboration. However, these studies have not included measures of task motivation, which is vital in young learners (YLs) and could help develop a more comprehensive understanding of task effectiveness. The present study analyses task motivation in 24 EFL YLs writing in pairs during three sessions divided into a model group (MG) and a task repetition group (TRG). Results show that students’ task motivation is high in general but declines in the MG while it is maintained in the TRG. As for the motives, working together is the main reason students give to justify their positive scores. These results complete previous knowledge about models and TR, reinforce the value of collaborative writing and encourage the inclusion of motivation measures in task-based research.

L2 writing development through two types of writing task repetition

This study investigated whether any remarkable effects emerge in terms of overall complexity, complexity by subordination, accuracy, and fluency in two types of writing task repetition during a single academic semester (16 weeks). The Cognition Hypothesis states that tasks involving different cognitive demands will lead to different L2 output. Thus, this study explored whether any significant differences existed between two task types: descriptive and argumentative essays. The results revealed different patterns in the two types of writing tasks. For the descriptive essays, despite the improvements in overall complexity, complexity by subordination, and fluency with a large effect size, no significant findings were confirmed for accuracy. In contrast, in the argumentative essays, the learners improved all the linguistic aspects, but with a medium effect size. This study also unraveled developmental trajectories to demonstrate how different variables interacted in the two different types of writing tasks throughout the measurement period.

Effects of task repetition with written corrective feedback on the knowledge and written accuracy of learners with different prior knowledge of the structure

Previous task repetition studies have largely overlooked the second language learners’ development of linguistic knowledge as well as written accuracy. Furthermore, sufficient attention has not been paid to the role of written corrective feedback (WCF) in task repetition to reinforce attention to form. Moreover, studies exploring task repetition effects on learners with different prior knowledge of the target structure are rare. This study attempted to bridge these lacunas. Seventy-nine upper-intermediate learners in Iran were divided into four groups: task repetition with no feedback (TR), task repetition with metalinguistic feedback (TR+M), task repetition with direct feedback (TR+D), and task repetition with mixed direct metalinguistic feedback (TR+DM). All groups performed an error correction test that measured explicit knowledge, an elicited imitation test that tapped automatized explicit knowledge, and a picture-cued written production test that measured written accuracy. Participants performed a dictogloss task and received WCF before repeating the same task. Subsequently, they performed another dictogloss task with different content. Results revealed that the +Prior Knowledge learners in the TR+DM group gained explicit knowledge and proved slightly better than the TR+D regarding written accuracy. None of the groups, however, could develop automatized explicit knowledge.

Task repetition in language learning: A bibliography

This file serves to provide a comprehensive (self-archived) bibliography of references related to task repetition and language learning. We are posting this in hopes of fostering further research in this area. We will update this file periodically. Please send any suggested references to [email protected]

Rumination and inhibition in task switching: Controlling for episodic retrieval

Rumination is typically defined as the perseverative focus of attention on negative internal thoughts and feelings, which can increase the risk of developing—and severity once developed—of depression. It is thought the perseveration is caused by a deficit in inhibitory control in ruminators. Congruent with this hypothesis, estimates of inhibition in task switching—the n–2 task repetition cost—are negatively associated with estimates of rumination. However, estimates of individual differences of n–2 task repetition costs are hampered by (a) measurement error caused by trial-wise variation in performance, and (b) recent evidence suggesting much of the n–2 task repetition cost measures interference in episodic memory, not inhibition. The aim of the current study is to revisit the question of the association between the n–2 task repetition cost and measures of rumination by (a) statistically accounting for measurement error by estimating n–2 task repetition costs via trial-level Bayesian multilevel modelling, and (b) controlling for episodic interference effects on estimates of n–2 task repetition cost by utilising a paradigm capable of doing so. Together, these methodological and statistical improvements will provide a clearer estimate of the association between inhibition and rumination.

The effect of input, repetition and metacognitive awareness on task performance in South Korean EFL classes

<p>The implementation of language learning tasks in EFL settings has been questioned for a number of reasons: limited use of L2, student overuse of a shared L1, a lack of connection between tasks and institutional demands, managing off-task behaviour and teacher unfamiliarity with tasks (Butler, 2011; Carless, 2004, 2008, 2009; Tinker Sachs, 2007). This study took an ecological approach (Van Lier, 2004) to investigate tasks and task implementation conditions designed to address the first four of these concerns. The study was a two-phase, mixed-method design in which I implemented ecologically valid tasks in an EFL course for South Korean university freshmen. The first phase was a one-semester exploratory study of six task-types with the aim of identifying deviations from the task-as-workplan. Differences from the workplan were discussed in relation to which stage of the task cycle, activity. planning. report (see J. Willis, 1996b) students re-interpreted and how these changes altered learning opportunities. The key findings were: (1) the students generally followed the workplan and engaged in extensive English-language collaborative assistance (Ohta, 2001). (2) Students rarely used the ‘planning’ phase of the task cycle to rehearse their public reports. They used this time to add new content, often using L1. (3) Throughout the task cycle, talk about grammar was rare except when one of the students was writing their team’s answer. (4) Echoing Carless (2008), students used markedly more L1 when the tasks were more “absorbing” because students worked to create interesting content rather than to develop their L2. (5) Of the six task types, the values clarification (VC) task was found to have best prompted students to discuss both lexis and grammar and to do so using relatively little L1. Based on these findings, the second phase, a quasi-experimental intervention, was carried out to determine the effect of three task implementation conditions on VC task performance. The conditions were: (1) an input-processing activity (IPA) done either pre- or post-task (cf. J. Willis, 1996b); (2) task and procedural repetition (Kim, 2013); and (3) raising learners’ metacognitive awareness (MA) of the purposes of the task (cf. Ewald, 2004). The intervention took place across six weeks of regularly scheduled classes. Students were kept in the same small teams throughout the study. The main findings were: (1) Students did not use target items from the IPA in their task performances; (2) Neither task nor procedural repetition had a statistically significant impact on the number or type of LREs, the amount of L1 used or on the correct use of a targeted task-natural grammar form. However, LRE counts and L1 use showed unpredicted negative trends. (3) The MA activity positively reversed the negative trends from repetition for some teams, indicating it provided a way to refocus participants on the learning objectives of the task particularly through the responses of other students. The following conclusions were made. First, for students to use target language in task interaction, it should be essential to the task. Second, the inclusion of collaborative writing in speaking tasks promotes attention to grammar. The effects of task repetition are mitigated by familiarity with members of the team; and therefore, effects of task repetition reported elsewhere represent the interaction of language development plus a new interlocutor. Finally, the metacognitive awareness activity affected student output, but had no impact on the use of input, suggesting training in learning from input may be needed. This study concludes with suggestions for further research and language teaching pedagogy.</p>

The effect of input, repetition and metacognitive awareness on task performance in South Korean EFL classes

<p>The implementation of language learning tasks in EFL settings has been questioned for a number of reasons: limited use of L2, student overuse of a shared L1, a lack of connection between tasks and institutional demands, managing off-task behaviour and teacher unfamiliarity with tasks (Butler, 2011; Carless, 2004, 2008, 2009; Tinker Sachs, 2007). This study took an ecological approach (Van Lier, 2004) to investigate tasks and task implementation conditions designed to address the first four of these concerns. The study was a two-phase, mixed-method design in which I implemented ecologically valid tasks in an EFL course for South Korean university freshmen. The first phase was a one-semester exploratory study of six task-types with the aim of identifying deviations from the task-as-workplan. Differences from the workplan were discussed in relation to which stage of the task cycle, activity. planning. report (see J. Willis, 1996b) students re-interpreted and how these changes altered learning opportunities. The key findings were: (1) the students generally followed the workplan and engaged in extensive English-language collaborative assistance (Ohta, 2001). (2) Students rarely used the ‘planning’ phase of the task cycle to rehearse their public reports. They used this time to add new content, often using L1. (3) Throughout the task cycle, talk about grammar was rare except when one of the students was writing their team’s answer. (4) Echoing Carless (2008), students used markedly more L1 when the tasks were more “absorbing” because students worked to create interesting content rather than to develop their L2. (5) Of the six task types, the values clarification (VC) task was found to have best prompted students to discuss both lexis and grammar and to do so using relatively little L1. Based on these findings, the second phase, a quasi-experimental intervention, was carried out to determine the effect of three task implementation conditions on VC task performance. The conditions were: (1) an input-processing activity (IPA) done either pre- or post-task (cf. J. Willis, 1996b); (2) task and procedural repetition (Kim, 2013); and (3) raising learners’ metacognitive awareness (MA) of the purposes of the task (cf. Ewald, 2004). The intervention took place across six weeks of regularly scheduled classes. Students were kept in the same small teams throughout the study. The main findings were: (1) Students did not use target items from the IPA in their task performances; (2) Neither task nor procedural repetition had a statistically significant impact on the number or type of LREs, the amount of L1 used or on the correct use of a targeted task-natural grammar form. However, LRE counts and L1 use showed unpredicted negative trends. (3) The MA activity positively reversed the negative trends from repetition for some teams, indicating it provided a way to refocus participants on the learning objectives of the task particularly through the responses of other students. The following conclusions were made. First, for students to use target language in task interaction, it should be essential to the task. Second, the inclusion of collaborative writing in speaking tasks promotes attention to grammar. The effects of task repetition are mitigated by familiarity with members of the team; and therefore, effects of task repetition reported elsewhere represent the interaction of language development plus a new interlocutor. Finally, the metacognitive awareness activity affected student output, but had no impact on the use of input, suggesting training in learning from input may be needed. This study concludes with suggestions for further research and language teaching pedagogy.</p>

HOW TO DEVELOP ORAL FLUENCY WHEN TEACHING ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

The article deals with the problem of oral fluency when teaching English for specific purposes. It highlights the importance of the development of fluency in English speaking class and investigates the factors that can make speaking more fluent. In this research we try to explain why speaking is complicated showing the functions of speech production, analyzing the notion of speaking competence and demonstrating the best speech conditions under which speaking fluency can be increased. With this purpose we describe the ways of developing fluency focusing on pretask planning and task repetition as some of the best ways of enhancing the ability to speak a foreign language easily well and quickly.