Sun Yating

【Abstract】This paper aims at investigating the effects of immediate task repetition along with corrective feedback on vocational college students oral fluency and accuracy based on the information processing theory. To achieve this end， two groups of students participated in this study， and their voices while finishing an oral narrative task were recorded. The findings showed that combined with corrective feedback， immediate same task repetition which helps speakers save more attention resources has a better effect on vocational college EFL learners oral fluency and accuracy. But the influence on fluency is more significant as the repetition helps relieve the cognitive stress. Whats more， the effect can transfer to the performance of a new oral task. The findings might be enlightening for the implementation of TBLT with the purpose of improving vocational college EFL learners oral output.

【Key words】immediate same task repetition； immediate different task repetition； vocational college EFL students' oral production； accuracy； fluency

【作者簡介】Sun Yating， Wuxi City college of vocational Technology.

I. The purpose of the Study

This paper aims to investigate the influence of both immediate same content task repetition and immediate different content task repetition combined with corrective feedback on vocational college EFL learners oral production in terms of fluency and accuracy. In light of the existing literature as well as the gaps in relevant research， the following three research questions guided the present study：

1. Does immediate same content task repetition with corrective feedback lead to improvement in vocational college EFL learners oral fluency and accuracy when they perform a new task？

2. Does immediate different content task repetition with corrective feedback have effects on vocational college EFL learners oral fluency and accuracy when they perform a new task？

3. Does immediate same content task repetition with corrective feedback have greater effects on vocational college EFL students oral fluency and accuracy than immediate different content task repetition？

II. Procedures

2.1 Grouping

According to students usual performance， 40 subjects were purposely chosen as the subjects in the study. They have common educational backgrounds， but their English proficiency levels are different. According to their test scores， these subjects were purposely allocated to two groups， 20 in each： the immediate same content repetition group and the immediate different content repetition group.

2.2 Pre-test

To ensure that the proficiency of the two groups is equivalent in accuracy and fluency， a pre-test was conducted so as to get a first-hand data about students actual achievement. The teacher explained the requirements of PET oral test and their scores were regarded as a part of their final English examination. Therefore， students took the exam seriously. The experiment involved in this study was probing the effects of immediate same and different task repetition with corrective feedback on vocational college EFL learners oral fluency and accuracy when they were performing a new task. In order to give an objective assessment of the students oral proficiency， two experienced teachers were invited to be the raters. At an interval of a half day， both groups fulfilled one task （cartoon 1）. They were asked to describe the pictures provided. The oral output of each subject was recorded and then put into transcripts for analysis. Then the author analyzed and compared the data of the test and finally reached the conclusion that the two groups oral performance had approximately the same oral proficiency level.

2.3 Task Repetition Experiment

The quantitative research contained a day-long experiment and three tests， namely the pre-test which came before the experiment（cartoon1）， the experimental test and the post-test （cartoon 8） which came after the experiment， aiming to address the research questions.

At the stage of experiment， both groups of participants were asked to perform the tasks as follows.

Table 1 Experiment design

Group Pre-test Experiment Post-test

different task repetition group Cartoon1 Cartoon2 Cartoon3 Cartoon4 Cartoon5 Cartoon6 Cartoon7 Cartoon8

same task repetition group Cartoon1 Cartoon1 Cartoon1 Cartoon1 Cartoon1 Cartoon1 Cartoon1 Cartoon8

For collecting the data， the participants of immediate different task repetition group were asked to narrate the cartoons from 2 to 7. Meanwhile， the participants of same different task repetition group were asked to narrate cartoon 1 altogether for seven times. Immediate corrective feedback would be given after each task. At this phase， they were asked to describe the pictures. The participants were asked to give a description of what they saw in the pictures. They were allowed to take a break between each task to alleviate fatigue， but they were not allowed to practice during the break. The only difference between the tasks of these two groups lay in that each time the immediate same content repetition group was given the same set of cartoon pictures to narrate， but the pictures for the immediate different content repetition group kept changing （cartoon 1—7）.

2.4 Post-test

After the task repetition experiment， an oral proficiency post-test was conducted， and their scores were also regarded as a part of their final English examination. Therefore， students took the exam seriously. The post-test goes through the same procedure as the pre-test with the same two raters.

The researcher assigned both the immediate same content repetition group and the immediate different content repetition group to complete a new task， that is， to narrate a new cartoon picture： cartoon 8 （post-test）. Their oral production was recorded with MP3 recorders， which was transcribed and analyzed in terms of their accuracy and fluency.

Bar graph of comparison of accuracy

III. Results and Discussion

3.1 Comparison of the Accuracy between Pre-test and Post-test of Immediate Same Task Repetition Group

The mean descriptive of cartoon1 and cartoon8 score and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. The table exhibits the general statistics of the two tests accuracy level. Independent samples t-test results are shown to testify the consequence of the experiment.

Table 2 Independent T-test of same task repetition group of accuracy

Group Statistics

cartoon N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

score 1 20 .5115 .10194 .02280

8 20 .6250 .11592 .02592

Independent Samples Test

Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t Sig. （2-tailed） Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

score Equal variances assumed .534 .470 -3.288 .002 -.11350 .03452

Equal variances not assumed -3.288 .002 -.11350 .03452

As the table 2 presented， after seven times same task repetition training， the output exist some differences between the performances of two tasks. The mean of cartoon 8 accuracy score0.1055 higher than cartoon 1 （pre-test） accuracy score Sig（ 2-tailed）=0.04﹤0.05. It illustrates that there is significant difference of accuracy performance between cartoon 1 and cartoon 8. That is to say， the method of same task repetition results in the enhancement of the accuracy.

3.2 Comparison of the Accuracy between Pre-test and Post-test of Immediate Different Task Repetition Group

Table 3 Independent T-test of different task repetition group of accuracy

Group Statistics

cartoon N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

score 1 20 .5355 .07917 .01770

8 20 .5610 .07546 .01687

Independent Samples Test

Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t Sig. （2-tailed） Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

score Equal variances assumed .209 .650 -1.043 .304 -.02550 .02446

Equal variances not assumed -1.043 .304 -.02550 .02446

As the table 3 presented， after seven times different task repetition training， the output exist little difference between the two tasks. The mean of cartoon 8 is 0.03 higher than cartoon 1 mean score， and sig=0.304>0.05. It illustrates that there is no significant difference of accuracy between pre-test and post-test in immediate different task repetition group. That is to say， the method of different task repetition has no obvious effect on oral accuracy.

3.3 Comparison of the Fluency between Pre-test and Post-test of Immediate Same Task Repetition Group

The mean descriptive of cartoon1 and cartoon8 score and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 4. The table exhibits the general statistics of the two tests fluency level. Independent samples t-test results are shown to testify the consequence of the experiment.

Table 4 Independent T-test of same task repetition group of fluency

Group Statistics

cartoon N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

score 1 20 55.6000 8.04854 1.79971

8 20 63.6500 7.32174 1.63719

Independent Samples Test

Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t Sig. （2-tailed） Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

score Equal variances assumed .316 .577 -3.309 .002 -8.05000 2.43297

Equal variances not assumed -3.309 .002 -8.05000 2.43297

As the table 4 presented， after seven times same task repetition training， the output exist some differences between the performances of two tasks. The mean of cartoon 8 fluency score is 8.05 higher than cartoon 1 （pre-test） accuracy score. Sig（ 2-tailed）=0.04﹤0.05. It illustrates that there is significant difference of fluency performance between cartoon 1 and cartoon 8. That is to say， the method of same task repetition results in the enhancement of the fluency.

3.4 Comparison of the Fluency between Pre-test and Post-test of Immediate Different Task Repetition Group

Table 5 Independent T-test of different task repetition group of fluency

Group Statistics

cartoon N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

score 1 20 55.1500 8.80356 1.96854

8 20 56.3500 8.54878 1.91156

Independent Samples Test

Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t Sig. （2-tailed） Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

score Equal variances assumed .021 .885 -.437 .664 -1.20000 2.74394

Equal variances not assumed -.437 .664 -1.20000 2.74394

As the table 5 presented， after seven times different task repetition training， the output exist little difference between the two tasks. The mean of cartoon 8 is 1.2 higher than cartoon 1 mean score， and sig=0.304>0.05. It illustrates that there is no significant difference of fluency between pre-test and post-test in immediate different task repetition group. That is to say， the method of immediate different task repetition has no obvious effect on oral accuracy.

IV. Major Findings

On the basis of TBLT， this study carries out systematic task repetition training accompanied with the appropriate corrective feedback.

The results of statistical analysis of the collected data revealed that：

1. Immediate same task repetition with corrective feedback had positive effects on fluency and accuracy of the vocational college EFL learners oral production.

2. Immediate different task repetition with corrective feedback manifested only a facilitative effect on fluency and exerted no facilitative effect on their accuracy；

3. In the new task， immediate same task repetition exerted a greater effect on vocational college EFL learners fluency and accuracy than immediate different task repetition.

The findings showed that immediate same task repetition with corrective feedback which focused on the linguistic form has a beneficial effect on learners fluency and accuracy. But the influence on fluency is more evident as the repetition helps relieve the cognitive stress. Whats more， the effect can transfer to a new performance of a new oral task. The findings might be enlightening for the task design that aims at improving the EFL learners oral production.

V. Suggestions for Teachers

Different from the previous studies in which the cognitive， emotional factors and learning strategies are emphasized， the present study highlights the functions of outer factors—the content of task. This paper mainly explores the influence of same and different task repetition on vocational college students ‘oral ability. Same task repetition can pave the way for improvement of oral accuracy and fluency. Students would notice and perceive linguistic form and the speed of speech through the same task repetition. The experiment shows same the task repetition contributes to language processing. The earlier the training is conducted，the better can students enhance their oral ability.In the training process，teachers should remind themselves not to give a lot of different oral assignment，but to instruct it explicitly and systematically.The training can be conducted from three aspects：syntactic awareness，pause and speed of speech. On the other hand， however， the negative impact of boredom still exists. Teachers should avoid too much repetition.

The fulfillment of teachers feedback helps learners improve their autonomy to construct their language and communication system. However， because of the teachers lack of role recognition and the influence of traditional teaching concepts， English teachers usually attach insufficient importance to their role as assessors in task-based language teaching， which leads to the unfulfillment of teachers role as an assessor. Vocational college English teachers should firstly form a clear understanding of the connotation of assessment in order to be a good assessor. Moreover， during the first few rounds of task repetition， teachers should work out specific criteria， assess the learners， observe and record the learning process and offer corrective feedback without delay.

Tasks are supposed to be practical， interesting and operative， catering to students needs and strengthening their feelings of success and enjoyment. In addition， the English teacher should give the students more opportunities for language practice in meaningful settings to make up for the limitations of traditional English lessons.

Last but not least， the teacher has to fully prepare himself for TBLT classes. Although TBLT classes are student-centered， the teacher bears greater responsibilities to set himself an example for students to learn from， especially in English pronunciation and language input.

References：

[1]Foster.P.&P.Skehan.The; Influence of planning and task type on second language performance.Studies in Second Language Acquisition，1996（3），299-323.

[2]Lyster，R.&Mori;，H.Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance[J].Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2006（28）：269-300.

[3]Lyster，R.&Ranta;，L.Corrective feedback and learner uptake[J].Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1997（19）：37-66.

[4]Sheen，Y H.Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings[J].Language Teaching Research 2004.8：263-300.

[5]Sheen.Y.H.Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake[J].Language Teaching Research 2006（10）：361-392.

[6]Truscott，J.The effect of error correction on learners ability to write accurately[J].System 2007（16）：255-272.

[7]杜娟.任務重復對中國大學英語學習者口語產出的影響[D].蘭州大學，2008.10.

[8]方智.任務型教學對高職學生英語口語產出能力的影響[D].揚州大學，2010.4.

[9]劉曦.How to Develop Accuracy and Fluency in Speaking Skills in Second Language Classroom[J].Crazy English Teachers 2013（2）：43-46.

[10]王恒花.Effects of Task Repetition with Corrective Feedback on College English Learners Oral Performance 2002[D].南京師范大學.