and spacing influence on speaking tasks
(1989) proposed a speaking model that describes speech production in three strands.
These three strands are named the conceptualizer, the formulator, and the
articulator. The conceptualizer is responsible to monitor the macro-planning
stage, which provides general knowledge and discourse knowledge as input for
the formulator in the next stage. The formulator respectively brings together
the vocabulary, grammar, and syllabary to make a phonological plan, which is
utilized by the last stage, namely the articulator, for actual oral production.
Parallel processes could effectively be demonstrated in these three stages, Where
native speakers are able to plan the content, organize language and make utterances
at the same time. For most of the L2 speakers, however, speaking has to proceed
systematically as a serial process. There is a monitor situated in the
conceptualizer to supervise the whole course of speaking for appropriacy of the
content and accuracy of the language and pronunciation. Over the years,
different changes were made to this model in order to adapt specifically for L2
and bilingual speaking (de Bot, 1992; de Bot & Schreuder, 1993; Payne &
Whitney, 2002; Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994). Nevertheless, all would agree
that one’s working memory is limitedas well as one’s attentional resources and
processing capacity (Skehan, 1998; VanPatten, 1990). As Bygate (1996) reiterated,
L2 learners were expected to be more fluent in terms of pausing and speed after
repeating the same task. This is because, all things being equal, one would
expect that performing the task a second time could involve less planning work.
In addition, it is more possible that speakers would have fewer false starts
and self-corrections because the task has already been formulated previously.
Similarly, few errors can be made because learners have succeeded in constructing
language items once.
scholars have shown that task repetition is useful for learners. To name a few,
Gass et al. (1999) examined the frequency effects through story re-telling.
They found that after three repeated (or similar) tasks over approximately two
weeks, the overall performance, morphosyntax and lexical complexity all showed significant
improvement, which they argued were the result of familiarization with the
exercise content and the shift of attention from planning to linguistic forms.
Lynch and McLean (2001) also reported generally positive impacts of repetition
in their poster carousel tasks. A clearer picture of the overall highly
beneficial influence of task repetition was shown in Bygate’s (2001) ten-week
the days when Krashen’s input hypothesis prevailed, Swain (1985) counter-offered
her well-known output hypothesis. Based on her longitudinal research of
Canadian emersion education, Swain maintains that comprehensible input is
necessary but not sufficient, and there must be enough comprehensible output to
reach native-like accuracy and fluency, because learners can test their
hypotheses of the target language and notice the gaps in their language
knowledge, thus rendering self-modification and correction possible.
will then be interesting to see the result of how repetition and output can be
combined to benefit learners’ language processing. There is no denying that
this practice will bring about the issue of boredom and fatigue, as exemplified
by Plough and Gass (1993), which reported that immediate task repetition did
not show any positive effects on learners’ performance because they were likely
to lose interests. However, as zhou (2006) suggested, there must be an optimal
point where the positive effects of task repetition reach their height while
the negative impacts of boredom are still not too devastating. This study seeks
to gather the methodology of mainly Zhou (2006) and Bygate (1996) in a hope to
examine the repetition effects of L2 speaking tasks.
interviews from related reports were also tested to discover learners’
understanding of task performance to fill the gap of qualitative research in