Differences in the effects of Task Repetition Techniques on the fluency development of ESL learners

Sujata Kakoti, Sarat Kumar Doley

Abstract


In an attempt to compare the effects of interleaved and blocked practice on L2 fluency development, 44 adolescent Indian English as L2 learners were given fluency training in English for three months. The participants in the blocked group engaged in task repetition practice of speaking English sentences in a predictable sequence of task repetition, i.e., aaaa, bbbb, cccc, and dddd, in the first 16 sessions. The sequence of the task repetition practice in the interleaved group was arranged using the technique of spacing and mixing, i.e., abcd, abbd, aacc, and bdcd, in the first 16 sessions. The mean values of the English fluency scores of the interleaved and blocked group in the two intermediate fluency tests in the middle of the training and one achievement test at the end showed no statistically significant difference in fluency development as the p-value of the comparison in a repeated measures ANOVA test was .29 representing low F value of 1.16 and effect size of .05. The participants in the blocked group, however, demonstrated a minor growth in fluency development from slow and hesitant speech behavior to occasional self-correction or repetition in a long speech in the later stages of the fluency training in English. The systematic manipulation of the sequence of the tasks to be practiced incorporating high similarity or stimuli retrieval in blocked practice might be more effective in fluency development in L2 than interleaving. As interleaving causes anxiety among beginners, it might not be an appropriate method of task repetition in the initial stage of fluency practice in L2.

Keywords


Interleaving; blocked practice; L2 fluency; task repetition; speaking

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahmadian, M. J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy, and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task? The Language Learning Journal, 39(3), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2010.545239

Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press.

Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435–459). MIT Press.

Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). Prentice Hall Inc.

Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 145(11), 1029-1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000209

Bygate, M. (2018). Learning language through task repetition (Vol. 11). John Benjamins.

Carpenter, S. K., & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory & Cognition, 41(5), 671-682. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0291-4

Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0371-0

de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533-568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x

DeKeyser, R. M. (2018). Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from skill acquisition theory. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 27-42). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.01dek

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

Finkbeiner, M., & Nicol, J. (2003). Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000195

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N. S., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 275-301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104262064

Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 321-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815570142

Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24(5), 608–628. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03201087

Guidelines for assessment of speaking and listening skills (ASL) for summative assessment I & II. (2012, September 12). Central Board of Secondary Education.

Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64(4), 809-854. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12084

Kakoti, S., & Doley, S. K. (2021). English speaking skill and Indian undergraduate ESL learners: Interleaving or block practice? Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 13(4), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v13n4.57

Kang, S. H. (2016). The benefits of interleaved practice for learning. In J. C. Horvath, J. M. Lodge, & J. Hattie (Eds.), From the laboratory to the classroom: Translating science of learning for teachers (pp. 79–93). Routledge.

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, 41(3), 829-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005

Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Routledge.

Lambert, C., Kormos. J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167-196. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000085

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.

Mayfield, K. H., & Chase, P. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(2), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-105

Miles, S. W. (2014). Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for L2 grammar learning. System, 42, 412–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.014

Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary learning: Does gradually increasing spacing increase vocabulary learning? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(4), 677–711. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000825

Pan, S. C., Tajran, J., Lovelett, J., Osuna, J., & Rickard, T. C. (2019). Does interleaved practice enhance foreign language learning? The effects of training schedule on Spanish verb conjugation skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7), 1172-1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000336

Porter, J. M., & Magill, R. A. (2010). Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sports skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(12), 1277–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.502946

Rogers, J. (2017). The spacing effect and its relevance to second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 38(6), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw052

Saito, K. (2020). Multi- or single-word units? The role of collocation use in comprehensible and contextually appropriate second language speech. Language Learning, 70(2), 548-588. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12387

Saito, K., Ilkan, M., Magne, V., Tran, M. N., & Suzuki, S. (2018). Acoustic characteristics and learner profiles of low-, mid- and high-level second language fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(3), 593-617. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000571

Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. (1998). Contextual interference effects in foreign language vocabulary acquisition and retention. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp.77–90). Erlbaum.

Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. (2002). What is learned under difficult conditions is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2813

Segalowitz, N. S. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Taylor & Francis.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X

Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000

Suzuki, Y. (2021). Optimizing fluency training for speaking skills transfer: Comparing the effects of blocked and interleaved task repetition. Language Learning, 71(2), 285-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12433

Suzuki, Y., & Sunada, M. (2020). Dynamic interplay between practice type and practice schedule in a second language: The potential and limits of skill transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 169-197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000470

Suzuki, Y., Yokosawa, S., & Aline, D. (2022). The role of working memory in blocked and interleaved grammar practice: Proceduralization of L2 syntax. Language Teaching Research, 26(4), 671-695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913985

Tavakoli, P., Campbell, C., & McCormack, J. (2016). Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 447-471. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.244

Tavakoli, P., & Hunter, A. M. (2018). Is fluency being “neglected” in the classroom? Teacher understanding of fluency and related classroom practices. Language Teaching Research, 22(3), 330-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817708462

Taylor, K. M., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837-848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1598

Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 369-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.232

van Os, M., de Jong, N. H., & Bosker, H. R. (2020). Fluency in dialogue: Turn-taking behaviour shapes perceived fluency in native and nonnative speech. Language Learning, 70(4), 1183-1217. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12416

Yan, V. X., Soderstrom, N. C., Seneviratna, G. S., Bjork, E.L., & Bjork, R. A. (2017). How should exemplars be sequenced in inductive learning? Empirical evidence versus learners’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(4), 403-416. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000139

Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & Cognition, 41(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0238-9




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i3.29751

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


View Journal Stats