External task repetitionthe role of modality, written corrective feedback and proficiency. A comparative study

Abstract

AIMS Task repetition has been widely studied in the oral modality. It is claimed to reduce learners' cognitive load and prompts them to engage in focus on form processes leading to an increased performance (Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2010; Bygate, 1996, 2001, 2006; Bygate & Samuda, 2005; Gass et al., 1999; Hawkes, 2010; Kim, 2013; Lynch & Maclean, 2000; 2001). However, TR in writing has much less often been researched (Baba & Nitta, 2014; Nitta & Baba, 2014, 2015, 2018; Amiryousefi, 2016) notwithstanding previous suggestions with respect to the differential effects of TR across modalities (Manchón, 2014) and, very importantly, the role written corrective feedback (WCF) may play in the written modality. Also, it is still an empirical question whether TR effects are mediated by proficiency (Mojavezi, 2013). More precisely, the areas in need of further research to which this PhD intends to contribute are the following: 1. The modality-related effects of TR. The aim of this study is to analyse the effects of modality (written/oral) on language performance quantified in CAF measures 2.The effect of TR as a function of the feedback provided, WCF being considered a crucial element in external task repetition implementation. 3. The mediating role which proficiency plays on TR. Proficiency having been claimed to have a moderating effect on the effects of TR. (Mojavezi, 2013). METHODOLOGY 66 participants at different proficiency levels (High n=31; Low n=35) were distributed in five groups in different experimental conditions i.e. oral (G1: H n=6; L n=8) writing (G2: H n=7; L=8), direct WCF (G3: H n=6; L n=7), indirect WCF (G4 H n=6; L n=7) and self-correction (G5: H n=6; L n=5). Prior to data collection, all participants signed a consent form and completed a demographic questionnaire. All groups performed a decision-making task (Gilabert, 2005; 2007) (day 1) and repeated the task a week later (day 8) under unlimited-time conditions. After having 30 seconds to read the instructions and to familiarise with the picture, participants were instilled to start. Additionally, G3, G4 and G5 completed an in-between session (day 4) where they were asked to analyse the WCF provided on errors in their compositions (G3 and G4) or to self-correct them (G5). To analyse the improvement made by participant from T1 to T2, we looked into the multidimension of CAF (Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency). In order to find out whether the differences found were significant, we conducted two mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA). One analysis compared the performance of groups 1 (oral) and 2 (writing) upon task repetition and followed a factorial design 2x2x2. The second of these analyses compared task repetition in writing in different writing conditions and compared the performance of groups 2 (writing), 3 (direct WCF), 4 (indirect WCF) and 5 (self-correction) upon task repetition and followed a factorial design 2x4x2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Regarding the first of the analyses comparing task repetition in oral and written modalities, no significant results were found for accuracy or lexical complexity due to task repetition. On the contrary, significant differences were found in the area of syntactic complexity. More precisely, the significant result found showed a significant reduction in the measure for subordination across groups from time 1 to time 2, much more marked for writing groups. With respect to fluency, significant results were found indicating that task repetition leads to a more significantly fluent performance in the oral modality regardless of proficiency level. These results lend some support to the predictions made for task repetition in the oral modality in terms of fluency (see for example Bygate, 1996; 2001) and show evidence of positive results in an under-researched population i.e. low-proficiency learners. However, the evident lack of positive results for task repetition in writing as compared to speech production indicate that it either massed task repetition (Nitta & Baba, 2014), external intervention in the form of WCF (Manchón 2014b) or even both, may be necessary for TR to yield positive results in writing. Also, significant modality-related effects were found concerning the use of more complex language in writing than in speaking in line with previous research (See Vasylets, Gilabert & Manchón, 2017). These results indicate that writing may serve as an environment able to create greater opportunities for language learning due to the differential characteristics of writing practices, most notably, the greater availability of time. With respect to task repetition in different writing conditions, no significant results were found in the area of complexity, whether lexical or syntactic, a result in line with previous studies (Amiryousefi, 2016). Regarding fluency, significant results were found albeit in the groups not receiving and processing WCF, that is low proficiency learners in the writing and self-correction groups and high proficiency learners in the writing group (Nitta & Baba, 2014). On the contrary, leaners in the direct and indirect WCF groups showed a significant increase in accuracy, supporting the claims concerning the beneficial effects of WCF (see Bitchener & Storch, 2016 for a recent review). It is likely that learners whose attention was explicitly directed to form during the WCF feedback processing session seemed to be paying more attention to accurate performance than to fast performance in the repetition of the task. On the contrary, those who did not engage in focus on form stages between performances still focused on meaning instead of form in the repeat performance leading to higher fluency. Accordingly, there may exist trade-off effects between accuracy and fluency dimensions as suggested by Skehan (1998, 2009). Certain limitations to our studies need to be acknowledged. Most importantly, the limited number of participants makes it difficult to draw conclusive implications from our findings. Furthermore, we only studied one type of task. It is known that different types of tasks may prompt different learning outcomes and mediate the effects of WCF. Therefore, studies covering different task-types should be conducted. Also, future research should take into account the longitudinal effects of task repetition in writing as mediated by the availability (or lack) of different types WCF and explore the motivational aspect of task repetition as well as the role certain individual differences may play when implementing task repetition in the language classroom.