The Language Learning Journal

ISSN: 0957-1736 (Print) 1753-2167 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20

Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on

learners’ written accuracy and fluency through
task repetition

Sima Khezrlou

To cite this article: Sima Khezrlou (2019): Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on
learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition, The Language Learning Journal,
DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765

Published online: 23 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rllj20
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765

Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written

accuracy and fluency through task repetition
Sima Khezrlou
Independent Researcher

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The current study explores whether form-focused instruction with Explicit instruction; FFI
different timing and availability conditions can be used with repetitive timing; FFI availability; task
writing tasks to enhance grammatical accuracy and fluency. Sixty-one repetition; written accuracy;
intermediate English as a foreign language (EFL) learners performed written fluency
three text reconstruction tasks: Task 1, Repeat Task, New Task, and
Delayed Task. At the repeat performance, participants received either no
explicit instruction (EI) (control), pre-writing EI (pre-EI), pre-writing EI also
available during task enactment (pre + online-EI) or post-writing EI (post-
EI). The results revealed that task repetition in the control group and to
a greater extent in the experimental groups led to enhanced written
accuracy and fluency. Concerning accuracy, the pre + online-EI group
outperformed all other groups and showed a gradual decrease
subsequently. In contrast, the pre-EI and post-EI groups were not found
to be different and their enhanced repeat performance declined sharply
afterwards. Written fluency flourished and was maintained in the post-EI
group followed by the pre-EI and control groups. There were no
significant changes in the pre + online-EI learners’ written fluency.

Introduction
The term form-focused instruction (FFI) refers to ‘any pedagogical practice undertaken by second
language (L2) teachers with the goal of drawing their students’ attention to language form’ (Collins
2012: 1). Both research and teaching experience have led to a rising agreement that teaching is
most successful when it devotes attention to both form and meaning (Lyster 2017; Shintani
2015). Consequently, the most important concerns and debates in L2 teaching are no longer
about whether pedagogy needs to include FFI, but rather how and when it is most efficient. The
timing of FFI, for example, is an issue that continues to motivate recent research looking into
the efficacy of instruction when a focus-on-form element is integrated into meaning-focused activi-
ties (integrated FFI) or it is directed discretely in isolated lessons (isolated FFI) (Spada and Light-
bown 2008). The timing issue is theoretically significant in that it examines whether a
concurrent focus on form and meaning would benefit the subsequent retrieval of the learned infor-
mation in actual and identical language use contexts (transfer-appropriate processing) (Blaxton
1989). In other words, the similarity between the learning process and the subsequent activation
of knowledge is expected to bring about enhanced performance. When applied to an instructional
sequence, this theory seems to be more in favour of pre-task instruction which provides more prac-
tice opportunities for the activation of learned knowledge than post-task instruction particularly for
learners with limited knowledge of the target form (Shintani 2017).

CONTACT Sima Khezrlou s.khezrlou@gmail.com

© 2019 Association for Language Learning
2 S. KHEZRLOU

Another significant area in FFI literature is whether the provision of explicit instruction (EI) and its
online availability can be effective in future task enactments. Some language learning theories
presume a straightforward relationship between explicit knowledge and unplanned language pro-
duction. Skill acquisition theory, according to DeKeyser (2015), contends that initial language learning
as a result of explicit instruction can, through repeated meaningful practice, ultimately change into
automatic production in which the language user forgets the metalinguistic explanation and may not
even remember having learned it in the first place. Hence, from the perspective of both transfer-
appropriate processing and skill acquisition theories (see VanPatten and Williams 2015), the avail-
ability of FFI in later task performances many not only increase accurate language production, but
also lead to procedural L2 knowledge. However, these presumptions have yet to be tested to
shed light on the significant role of EI in fostering both accurate and fluent language use. One
ideal procedural option to attain this purpose is task repetition.
Previous research has supported the effectiveness of task repetition in cultivating L2 oral perform-
ance with respect to fluency and complexity (e.g. Bygate 2001). However, to the researcher’s knowl-
edge, there is no clear evidence regarding the role of task repetition integrated with isolated FFI on L2
writing ability. The present study, therefore, intends to explore the timing and availability of FFI in
terms of pre- and post-writing EI and the effect on writing accuracy and fluency. Furthermore, the
study examines the degree to which EI effectiveness could extend from the repeat task to a new
task and a delayed task.

Theoretical and empirical background

Form-focused instruction
According to Doughty and Williams (1998), focus on form (FonF) involves attention to language form inte-
grated within an overall communicative pedagogy, while focus on forms (FonFs) is restricted to a prede-
termined list of language forms, and focus on meaning excludes any attention. Review of the empirical
research on the role of FFI (both FonF and FonFs) indicates that FFI helps language learners in commu-
nicative classrooms to use the language fluently and accurately (e.g. Tavakoli, Colin and McCormack 2016;
Vercellotti 2017). As research presenting positive evidence for FFI across a range of linguistic structures,
learners and pedagogical contexts has accumulated, attention has switched to investigating the effective-
ness of the explicitness of attention and its effect on the performance of a task.
Growing evidence from empirical studies in L2 learning (e.g. Elder and Manwaring 2004; Hu 2002,
2011; Roehr 2010) and L2 writing (Shintani 2017; Wang and Wang 2014) have specified a significant
role for EI particularly for foreign language (FL) learners. Studies by Hu (2002, 2011), for example, lend
credence to the mobilisation of L2 explicit knowledge by young adult learners, though various
psychological factors influenced the real time access to such knowledge. Ellis (2006), Elder and Man-
waring (2004) and Roehr (2010) have all identified significant correlations between the university lear-
ners’ explicit knowledge of different linguistic features and their overall language proficiency. Two
meta-analyses of the effects of grammar instruction by Norris and Ortega (2000) and Spada and
Tomita (2010) provided evidence for the superiority of explicit over implicit instruction in the acqui-
sition of both complex and simple language forms.
In sum, the review of the literature makes it clear that although scholars (e.g. Polio 2012) point to
the potential role of EI in L2 writing, the question regarding the impact of pre- and post-task EI on
both the written fluency and accuracy still remains unanswered. In the next section, I overview the
studies that have endeavoured to explore FFI timing and availability.

Isolated FFI: timing and continued availability

Spada and Lightbown (2008) distinguished between isolated and integrated FFI. While the former
intends to isolate attention to form from communicative instruction, the latter embeds such attention
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 3

within communicative teaching. There is compelling empirical evidence for isolated FFI (DeKeyser
2007; Shintani 2017), integrated FFI (Spada, Lightbown, and White 2005) and both (Spada et al.
2014; Valeo and Spada 2016). In writing, the focus on form is normally isolated from the actual mean-
ingful writing process (Polio 2012) and takes the form of instruction provided either before or after a
writing task.
Although the majority of studies on writing development have applied FFI in the form of correc-
tive feedback either before or after the task performances, very few studies have investigated the
benefits of pre- and post-task isolated instruction. Wang and Wang (2014) provided university lear-
ners with pre-writing explicit grammar instruction in the form of a series of sentence grammar work-
books which led to improvements in writing skills as well as editing skills. Shintani, Ellis and Suzuki
(2014) revealed that a revision opportunity after post-writing EI led to increased accuracy for the
past-counterfactual conditional but not for the indefinite article. Finally, Shintani’s (2017) study on
pre- and post-writing EI with and without continued availability indicated the efficacy of pre-task
EI in the development of explicit knowledge and accuracy of learners with no prior knowledge
while the post-task EI enabled learners with some prior knowledge to better revise their texts.
Additionally, the continued availability of EI (i.e. the learners’ access to the EI handout while
writing) was effective for those learners with some existing knowledge of the target form.
Overall, the emerging picture of timing and availability of FFI in L2 writing is still incomplete given
the limited number of studies. The present study was therefore an endeavour to compare the effec-
tiveness of pre- and post-writing EI and its availability in bringing about accurate and fluent written
productions by EFL learners. This comparison was made possible through task repetition where the
effect was measured in both the repeat and new task performances.

Task repetition
Task repetition includes asking learners to repeat the same or slightly different tasks at different
points in time (Bygate and Samuda 2005). In task repetition, the first task enactment is regarded
as the preparation for subsequent performances (Ellis 2006). According to theories based on lear-
ners’ limited processing capacities, such as Skehan’s (2014) trade-off hypothesis, in the first task
performance, learners are so preoccupied with accomplishing the task that they attend only to
the content, skipping a focus on form. Task repetition is, thus, seen as an approach to the manipu-
lation of attention priorities (Bygate 2001). In this way, learners primarily attend to meaning fol-
lowed by a shift of focus to the monitoring and selection of proper language use in the repeat
task (Bygate 2001).
Task repetition has been proved to positively influence learners’ task performance regarding accu-
racy, fluency and complexity (Ahmadian and Tavakoli 2011; Bygate 2001). There have been limited
research attempts, however, to investigate the transferability of positive effects to a new task. One
suggested way to achieve this durability effect leading to acquisition is instructional intervention
(Ellis 2016). Sheppard (2006, as cited in Ellis 2016) provided Japanese learners with feedback on
their initial performance which brought about advances in fluency, complexity and accuracy in the
repeat performance and a transferred progress in complexity. In a recent study, Sheppard and Ellis
(2018) reported the positive effect of stimulated recall between performances of the same narrative
task on fluency but this effect faded away in the new task. Additionally, no effects were found on
accuracy and complexity. Hawkes (2012) probed the effects of repeating the exact same task after
having directed learners to the target form in the main task. Results illustrated that Japanese learners
paid more attention to form during the repeat performance. Thai and Boers (2016) asked Vietnamese
EFL learners to repeat a monologue under time pressure and uncovered positive effects only on
fluency. They concluded that for balanced production purposes, learners should be offered opportu-
nities to change their performance early in the task sequence without any time pressure. Lastly, Nitta
and Baba (2014) suggested that the value of task repetition might only show up over an extended
period of time specifically for the development of writing skill.
4 S. KHEZRLOU

To summarise, the above review of the role of FFI timing and its continued availability show that
these issues are still unresolved in L2 writing pedagogy. Additionally, research into task repetition as
an implementation feature that can provide potential insights into the mobilisation of knowledge
and its transfer to new contexts is limited, but emerging. To address these research gaps, this
study intended to contribute to the developing body of research into the effect of explicit instruction
timing (pre- and post-writing) and its continued availability on learners’ written accuracy and fluency
development using a task repetition procedure. In light of these points, the study described here was
guided by the following research questions:

(1) What are the effects of task repetition with different timing and availability of isolated FFI or
without it (pre-EI, pre + online-EI, post-EI and control) on EFL learners’ written accuracy?
(2) What are the effects of task repetition with different timing and availability of isolated FFI or
without it (pre-EI, pre + online-EI, post-EI and control) on EFL learners’ written fluency?

Method
Participants
Participants were 61 adult learners of English as a foreign language in a private language institute in Iran
(28 male and 33 female3) whose ages ranged from 17 to 21. Four intact classes were randomly assigned
to one of four conditions: Pre-EI (n = 16), pre + online-EI (n = 15), post-EI (n = 16), and control (n = 14).
Although all the participants had begun learning EFL earlier in secondary school (grade 7), their level
of proficiency was determined to be intermediate by the standardised Oxford Placement Test used in
the institute. Their first language was all Azarbaijani Turkish, yet they also knew Farsi as the official
language of Iran. Since the study was carried out in a private language institute, the socioeconomic
status of participants was estimated to be middle to upper-middle class. As is typical of the Iranian
EFL context, the participants’ English learning resulted mainly from classroom instruction and none
had ever been to an English-speaking country at the time of the research. Although they had previously
been introduced to the target structure, that is the passive voice in English, the pretest accuracy results
showed that they had failed to master it (M = 2.20, out of 10 possible points, SD = 1.88).

Target structure
The passive voice in English was selected as the target structure for both pedagogical and empirical
reasons. Pedagogically, passive voice is not frequently used in teacher input or in textbooks, making it
a difficult structure for EFL learners to acquire. This is also noted in the second language acquisition
(SLA) literature since even advanced learners continue to struggle with the structure (Hinkel 2002).
From the empirical perspective, prior research has provided inconclusive evidence regarding the
efficacy of FFI in passive voice acquisition, with some studies showing positive outcomes (Qin
2008), while other found no effect (Williams and Evans 1998).

Tasks
Three text reconstruction (TR) tasks were counterbalanced and presented to all groups. The TR task
used in session 1 served as both the pre-test to measure participants’ homogeneity in terms of
written fluency and accuracy and as the main task. This same task also constituted the Repeat
Task in the second session. Additionally, there was a second TR task that functioned as New Task
and a third TR as Delayed Task, each with a different story. The three TR tasks were developed
taking into consideration the generality of the topic, level of difficulty, length, and appropriateness
to the level of learners. The materials comprised an audio-recorded story (216, 214, or 220 words
in length), a note-taking sheet, and a TR sheet. Eight English passive voice sentences were used in
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 5

each story. The learners were given the note-taking sheet in order to make notes while listening to
the audio-recorded text twice. Afterwards, they were provided with the TR sheet to reconstruct the
passage within 20-minute.
For the purpose of the present study, the original TR task was adapted. Prior to the first reading of
the story, learners in the pre-EI and pre + online-EI groups received explicit instruction about the
target structure followed by simply listening to the text without any task. Those in the post-EI
group, on the other hand, received no instruction and only listened to the text. In the course of
the second reading, learners in all groups were asked to take notes while listening, with the pre +
online-EI group learners having an opportunity to keep their EI sheet in this stage. After the
second reading, instead of pair work in the original task procedure, participants were directed to
reconstruct the text individually within 20-minutes so that their accuracy and fluency could be eval-
uated. After text reconstruction, the post-EI learners received the same amount of instruction time as
the other EI conditions and were asked to revise their reconstructed text accordingly within 10-
minutes. The control group learners performed the same tasks without receiving any EI.
The reason behind the selection of TR tasks in the current study was the importance of creating a
context for the use of passive structure, as noted in previous research (Shintani 2017). Several written
corrective feedback studies have indicated the learners’ avoidance of the use of the target structure
in other types of tasks such as free writing (e.g. van Beuningen, de Jong and Kuiken 2008).

Explicit instruction
An A4-size explicit instruction handout was used in this study that comprised the metalinguistic
explanation of the target grammatical structure. The EI sheet for the experimental groups consisted
of explicit information on the English passive voice written in Farsi, and additional explanations along
with examples of word order in passive structures presented in English. This sheet in fact functioned
as a mini lesson about meaning, form and use of the passive structure. Whereas both the pre-EI and
pre + online-EI groups were given the EI sheet prior to the TR tasks, only the latter was allowed to
keep their sheet while reconstructing the text. The post-EI learners were given the EI sheet only
after they had reconstructed the story and were given 10-minutes to rewrite their texts based on
the information. Control group learners were not exposed to any explicit instruction at all.

Written accuracy and fluency measures

The scoring procedure for the accuracy was as follows: a correct answer was awarded three points if
the three components of the passive structure including ‘auxiliary’, ‘past participle’ and ‘preposition
by’ were used correctly. For instance, the sentence ‘The song played by the musician’ would gain two
points due to the absence of the auxiliary ‘is’, and ‘The song is play the musician’ would get one point
for missing both the preposition and the past participle form of the verb. All other errors in spelling
and punctuation were overlooked to diminish the likely over-estimation of errors related to partici-
pants’ indistinct handwriting.
Fluency in this study was measured in accordance with Skehan’s (1996) definition which parallels
fluency with learners’ use of their interlanguage to communicate their planned meaning in real time.
Hence, the total number of words produced by each participant in their reconstructed writing tasks
was divided by the total number of minutes spent for writing by each participant on the same writing
task. All participants started and finished writing at the same time within 20-minutes. The post-EI
group participants’ accuracy and fluency scores were coded after self-revisions.

Procedure
The present quasi-experimental research began by receiving the participants’ informed consent and
was completed in four sessions (see Figure 1): the first Task 1 session where the performance of all
6 S. KHEZRLOU

Figure 1. Research design.

groups on this task was considered as pretest, the second Repeat Task session, the third New Task
session, and the final Delayed Task session. The study lasted for twenty days in total during which
the first three sessions were one day apart and the Delayed Task was administered in week three.
This decision about repetition intervals was taken with regard to the speed of memory decay.
Additionally, it was assumed that improved performance on tasks or noticing of forms is not likely
unless the tasks are repeated within a short period of time.
The four intact classes were each assigned to one of the four conditions: pre-EI, pre + online-EI,
post-EI, and control group conditions. The comparability of groups was ensured through the pre-
test where the results of one-way ANOVA confirmed participants’ equality in terms of their written
accuracy and fluency at the onset of the study (p > .05). Participants were also homogeneous regard-
ing their level of proficiency as evidenced by the Oxford Placement Test administered by the institute.
In all groups, text-reconstruction tasks were used where learners firstly listened to the audio-recorded
story followed by a second listening together with a note-taking opportunity and finally a text-recon-
struction phase. Each group was exposed to a different treatment depending on the ‘timing’ and
‘availability’ of explicit instruction. Whereas both the pre-EI and pre + online-EI learners received EI
prior to the TR task, only members of the latter group were allowed to access their EI sheet during
the note-taking step. Post-EI learners carried out the TR tasks without any EI which was deferred
to the last phase, namely the reconstruction of the text. In this stage, they were given 10-minutes
to self-edit their texts based on the explicit information. Although the control group learners were
exposed to the same tasks, they did not receive any EI. All learners’ progress in accuracy and
fluency was measured according to their written outputs at the end of each task completion. All
tasks were pen-and-paper assignments.

Data analysis
All of the statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS version 21.0, with the level of significance set
at .05. Cohen’s Kappa results for the inter-rater reliability of the TR tasks (the ratio of error-free-t-units
to the total number of t-units = .97) was high in both the pre-test (κ = .95), Repeat Task (κ = .97), New
Task (κ = .96) and Delayed Task (κ = .94). Furthermore, to estimate the intra-rater reliability, a PhD
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 7

student re-coded and re-rated 30% of the data, resulting in a perfectly acceptable Cronbach’s Alpha
in all TR tasks ranging from .93 to .98.
To analyse the obtained data, first, the scores were checked with respect to the normality of dis-
tribution, homogeneity of variances, and independence. Second, a repeated measures analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted for each research question, with task as within-subject
factor, group as between-subject factor, and the pre-test as covariate. In addition, participants’
advances from the pre-test to post-tests were compared by paired samples t-tests with Bonferroni
correction. Partial eta-squared (h2p ) and Cohen’s d were calculated to measure effect sizes.

Results
Effect on accuracy
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics for the accuracy scores for all four groups, categorised per
session (i.e. Task 1, Repeat Task, New Task and Delayed Task) and Figure 2 presents the results visually.
A repeated measures ANCOVA on participants’ accuracy rates in their produced texts showed non-
significant differences on the pre-test, F(3, 57) = .30, p = .82, but significant main effects for group, F(3,
57) = 164.02, p = .0005, h2p = .89, task, F(1, 57) = 71.56, p = .0005, h2p = .56, and group × task interaction,
F(3, 57) = 77.06, p = .0005, h2p = .57. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey test revealed the clear super-
iority of the pre + online-EI over pre-EI (p = .0005, d = .49), post-EI (p = .0005, d = .60), and control (p
= .0005, d = 1.62) groups. Although the post-EI and the pre-EI were not found to have different accu-
racy rates (p = .72), they were both better than the control group (p = .0005, d = 1.24, 1.21 respect-
ively). This indicates that although all the experimental groups outperformed the control group in
all the post-tests, the pre + online-EI group achieved a greater degree of accuracy compared with
other groups.
In order to test within-group differences, a series of paired samples t-tests with Bonferroni correc-
tion (p < .005) were performed. Results for the pre-EI group demonstrated a significant improvement
from Task 1 to Repeat Task (p = .0005, d = 6.24), New Task (p = .0005, d = 2.16), and Delayed Task

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the accuracy scores.

Groups Tasks Mean Std. Deviation
pre-EI (n = 16) Task 1 2.25 1.23
Repeat Task 10.75 1.48
New Task 5.25 1.52
Delayed Task 4.00 1.03
Total (N = 80) 5.72 3.19
pre + online-EI (n = 15) Task 1 2.33 1.23
Repeat Task 12.80 2.07
New Task 9.46 1.55
Delayed Task 5.26 1.33
Total (N = 75) 7.48 3.92
post-EI (n = 16) Task 1 2.56 1.36
Repeat Task 9.43 1.31
New Task 6.18 1.22
Delayed Task 3.12 .80
Total (N = 80) 5.42 2.75
control (n = 14) Task 1 2.14 1.23
Repeat Task 4.35 1.21
New Task 2.57 1.01
Delayed Task 2.42 .85
Total (N = 70) 2.84 1.01
Total Task 1 (N = 61) 2.32 1.24
Repeat Task (N = 61) 9.11 3.89
New Task (N = 61) 5.91 2.76
Delayed Task (N = 61) 3.72 1.45
Total (N = 305) 5.35 3.39
8 S. KHEZRLOU

Figure 2. Mean accuracy across tasks.

(p = .0005, d = 1.54). But, their accuracy declined abruptly and significantly after Repeat Task in both
New Task (p = .0005, d = 3.66) and Delayed Task (p = .0005, d = 5.29). Besides, there was not a differ-
ence between New Task and Delayed Task (p = .02, d = .96). For the pre + online-EI group, there was a
significant progress from Task 1 to Repeat Task (p = .0005, d = 6.14), New Task (p = .0005, d = 5.09),
and Delayed Task (p = .0005, d = 2.28). Similar to the pre-EI participants, the pre + online-EI learners
attained the highest accuracy rate in Repeat Task compared to New Task (p = .0005, d = 1.82), and
Delayed Task (p = .0005, d = 4.33). Accuracy was greater in New Task than in Delayed Task (p
= .0005, d = 2.90). Comparisons for the post-EI group indicated a significant enhancement from
Task 1 to Repeat Task (p = .0005, d = 5.14) and New Task (p = .0005, d = 2.80), with a nonsignificant
difference found between Task 1 and Delayed Task (p = .18). Additionally, Repeat Task was better
than both New Task (p = .0005, d = 2.56) and Delayed Task (p = .0005, d = 5.81). And, New Task per-
formance was more accurate than Delayed Task (p = .000, d = 2.96). Finally, the performance of the
control group enhanced only in Repeat Task compared to Task 1 (p = .0005, d = 1.81), New Task (p
= .003, d = 1.59) and Delayed Task (p = .0005, d = 1.84).
To summarise, it can be said that all groups achieved a significantly increased accuracy in their
repeated task enactments. Task repetition in the control group induced attention to form and led
to significantly increased accuracy. The pre-EI learners’ increased performance in the repeat perform-
ance diminished in New and Delayed Tasks; however, New Task performance was maintained in
Delayed Task. The pre + online-EI group’s repeat performance did not carry over to New Task or to
Delayed Task, and although the accuracy in Delayed Task dropped, it was still better than that of
Task 1. Lastly, the post-EI learners’ enhanced Repeat Performance decayed in New Task and this posi-
tive achievement wore off completely in Delayed Task.

Effect on fluency
Descriptive statistics of fluency scores are reported in Table 2 and Figure 3.
The results from repeated measures ANCOVA were used to verify if the fluency results in the four
groups were significant. Results revealed non-significant pre-test differences among groups, F(3, 57)
= 1.00, p = .39; however, there was a significant group effect, F(3, 57) = 62.21, p = .0005, h2p = .76, task
effect, F(1, 57) = 9.88, p = .003, h2p = .15, and a significant group × task interaction effect, F(3, 57) = 3.66,
p = .01, h2p = .16. Tukey’s contrasts confirmed the significant superiority of the post-EI group over the
pre-EI (p = .002, d = .62) and pre + online-EI (p = .0005, d = 2.07) as well as the control (p = .0005, d =
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 9

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the fluency scores.

Groups Tasks Mean Std. Deviation
pre-EI (N = 16) Task 1 4.81 .98
Repeat Task 7.50 1.50
New Task 5.50 1.36
Delayed Task 5.37 1.45
Total (N = 80) 5.50 1.32
pre + online-EI (N = 15) Task 1 4.53 .74
Repeat Task 3.93 1.33
New Task 3.66 1.11
Delayed Task 4.13 .99
Total (N = 75) 3.91 1.04
post-EI (N = 16) Task 1 4.37 1.02
Repeat Task 9.06 1.34
New Task 6.31 1.30
Delayed Task 6.06 1.06
Total (N = 80) 6.31 1.26
control (N = 14) Task 1 4.21 1.18
Repeat Task 6.14 1.09
New Task 4.28 1.20
Delayed Task 4.35 1.08
Total (N = 70) 4.68 1.14
Total Task 1 (N = 61) 4.60 1.02
Repeat Task (N = 61) 6.45 2.46
New Task (N = 61) 5.22 1.53
Delayed Task (N = 61) 5.18 1.37
Total (N = 305) 5.22 1.58

Figure 3. Mean fluency across tasks.

1.35) groups. The pre-EI outperformed the control group (p = .001, d = .66), and they both significantly
outperformed the pre + online-EI group (p = .0005, d = 1.33, .70 respectively). The between-group
comparisons, in sum, pinpoint the success of the post-EI learners in terms of written fluency followed
by the pre-EI and control groups. The pre + online-EI did not achieve written fluency.
A series of paired samples t-tests with Bonferroni correction (p < .005) were carried out to note the
within-group changes. For the pre-EI group, results were significant only for Repeat Task in compari-
son to Task 1 (p = .0005, d = 2.12), New Task (p = .002, d = 1.39) and Delayed Task (p = .002, d = 1.44).
All other within-group comparisons were non-significant. The comparisons for the pre + online-EI
group’s fluency scores did not approach significance in any task. The post-EI learners’ Task 1 perform-
ance improved in Repeat Task (p = .0005, d = 3.93), New Task (p = .0005, d = 1.66), and Delayed Task
10 S. KHEZRLOU

(p = .0005, d = 1.62). Fluency in the Repeat Task was higher than New Task (p = .0005, d = 2.08) and
Delayed Task (p = .0005, d = 2.48) and participants maintained their New Task performance to
Delayed Task (p = .49). Finally, the within-group comparisons for the control group demonstrated
its high performance in Repeat Task compared to Task 1 (p = .0005, d = 1.69), New Task (p = .0005,
d = 1.62), and Delayed Task (p = .001, d = 1.64). There was no other significant change in this group.
In sum, within group comparisons for fluency development indicated that both the pre-EI and
post-EI groups performed similarly: Their highest fluency rate was observed in Repeat Task, but
this declined for both groups in New Task and Delayed Task, and they both carried over their New
Task performance to Delayed Task. However, they diverged in one significant point: even though
the post-EI learners’ fluency in New Task and Delayed Task performances was higher than in Task
1, the pre-EI learners’ fluency after Repeat Task decreased to Task 1 level. Finally, the pre + online-
EI learners failed to produce any fluent written texts.

Discussion
The present study aimed to explore the effect of task repetition with different explicit instruction
timing and availability options on EFL learners’ written accuracy and fluency. Results revealed that
task repetition attracted attention to form and thereby led to accuracy in all groups; however, it
led to increased fluency only when it was not concurrent with the online EI. This effect can be attrib-
uted to the participants’ limited processing capacity which makes accessing and encoding linguistic
knowledge during L2 production demanding (Ellis 2015). Regarding accuracy, the similarity of the
task procedure and content in Repeat Task (either with EI or a lack of it) helped learners direct
their attention to the linguistic form, as also evidenced in previous studies (Kim and Tracy-Ventura
2013; Nitta and Baba 2014; Sheppard 2006, as cited in Ellis 2016). Concerning fluency, the noticing
effect induced by the repetition did not interfere with a fluent performance when EI was not available
online (i.e. in the pre-EI, post-EI and control conditions). However, the accessibility of EI in the pre +
online-EI group led to learners’ spending time on reviewing/using the structure while constructing
the texts, resulting in dysfluency. In sum, the findings are consistent with those of previous studies
(e.g. Ahmadian and Tavakoli 2011) verifying the potential of task repetition with instructional inter-
ventions in overriding the tension between the exigencies of accuracy and fluency.
In terms of written accuracy, all the experimental groups outperformed the control group,
suggesting the efficacy of isolated EI in enhancing written accuracy as has been corroborated in
earlier studies (e.g. Bitchener and Ferris 2012). The pre + online-EI learners showed a higher perform-
ance compared with the pre-EI (d = .49), post-EI (d = .60), and control (d = 1.62) groups, although their
high Repeat Task accuracy gradually decreased first in New Task (d = 1.82) and then in Delayed Task
(d = 4.33). In the same vein, the pre-EI learners raised their performance to its highest level in Repeat
Task, but this effect deteriorated sharply in New Task (d = 3.66) and Delayed Task (d = 5.29), and then
remained unchanged from New Task to Delayed Task. Finally, apart from their outstanding Repeat
Task enactment, the post-EI learners’ accuracy weakened in New Task and eventually failed in
Delayed Task. Thus, the superiority of the pre + online-EI over the other groups underscores the sig-
nificant role of the availability of EI in facilitating a gentler decrease from the repeated performance
onwards. This implies that accuracy was mostly conditional to the availability of EI rather than its
timing since both the pre-EI and post-EI groups increased their accuracy. Hence, this finding is con-
trary to the theory of transfer-appropriate processing predicting the efficiency of pre-task instruction
in helping learners monitor and revise their texts comparable to the actual writing process (Blaxton
1989). The eminence of EI availability has also been attested in Shintani’s (2017) study which found a
remarkable role for online EI in improving written accuracy especially by learners with some prior
knowledge of the targeted structure, similar to the participants of the present study who had
some prior, although ill-formed, knowledge of the passive voice in English. Taken together, it can
be argued that EI availability during the writing process helped learners monitor their accurate use
of the passive voice and to notice their errors within the task.
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 11

For the second research question, the results revealed that written fluency increased in the post-EI
group followed by the pre-EI and control groups. The pre + online-EI group, however, did not pro-
gress at all in terms of fluency. This finding seems to be consistent with Skehan’s (2014) hypothesis,
positing that since learners have a limited attentional resource, and thus limited processing capacity,
they can focus only on one aspect of language production (complexity, accuracy, or fluency) at a
given time while performing a particular task. While the pre + online-EI learners were the highest
achievers regarding accuracy, they demonstrated a poor fluency rate in their texts reflecting the dete-
riorating effect of the online EI access. The online access is naturally more disruptive and time con-
strained than EI before or after writing, thereby likely problematic for fluency development. This is,
however, in contrast to the transfer-appropriate processing theory claiming the effectiveness of
online availability of EI in cultivating accurate followed by fluent L2 productions. With regard to EI
timing, results indicated the efficacy of post-writing EI since the post-EI learners could extend their
high repeat performance to the subsequent tasks as well. In sum, opposite to accuracy, fluency
declined with pre-writing instruction particularly when it was coupled with an online access to it.
As Skehan (2014) puts, fluency of the learners’ language production will decrease as learners have
to process language.

Conclusion
This study was primarily an endeavour to explore the effects of explicit instruction embedded in task rep-
etition at different points in time and with different availability options on EFL learners’ development of
written accuracy and fluency. The main findings are summarised as follows: It was found that in general,
task repetition in combination with EI would lead to greater written accuracy and fluency. With respect to
EI timing, accuracy was not affected, whereas fluency was facilitated with post-writing EI. Lastly, EI avail-
ability caused an abrupt increase in accuracy to the deterioration of fluency. Hence, the most substantial
contribution of this study to the current body of knowledge is the finding that task repetition enriched
with EI brings about both accuracy and fluency as long as the learners’ task engagement is not simul-
taneously distracted by a referral to the available information. This implies that repeated tasks with
the provision of pre- or post-writing explicit instruction with no online availability can safely be used
as a pedagogical intervention that furnishes a general and balanced writing quality.
These findings have several implications for practice. Firstly, teachers need to note that providing
explicit information on a challenging grammatical feature to a whole class is more time efficient com-
pared to providing written corrective feedback on each learner’s composition. Besides, considering
that pre-activity grammar instruction is a familiar practice for L2 teachers, it can be integrated
with meaning-focused language teaching through task repetition to help learners actively apply
their knowledge to the communicative task. Given that L2 writing entails simultaneous complex cog-
nitive processes (Manchon 2014) such as noticing and attentional FonF processes and formulation of
hypotheses regarding linguistic forms and functions, providing learners with explicit knowledge prior
to a writing task might facilitate these processes, resulting in enhanced L2 knowledge that the lear-
ners can utilise in new writing contexts. Furthermore, if the teaching purpose is to foster written
fluency, it is advisable to exercise a primary attention to meaning negotiation before a FonF. Teachers
can accomplish this purpose by observing their learners’ task performance, making notes about any
linguistic problems that arise, and then attending to these explicitly when the task is over. Lastly, the
study highlights benefits of repeating tasks, particularly when both content and procedure were
repeated twice. As teachers often recycle materials and task types in classroom contexts to offer
more language learning opportunities, the results of the current study may be used to verify repeated
use of the same type in L2 writing development.
This study also has some limitations and implications for further research. Firstly, the written tasks
in this study were text reconstruction tasks which necessitated the ability to comprehend oral input
and take notes based on it. The findings would be more valid in the case of replications making up for
this limitation by using various tasks. Secondly, the participants repeated the same tasks only once
12 S. KHEZRLOU

and there was a one-day interval between task enactments. The findings of this study, thus, need to
be replicated with regard to this limitation, comparing distributed versus massed practice. Further-
more, participants in this study were intermediate level learners and there is a need for a longitudinal
study or a study drawing comparisons across different proficiency levels to present more informative
insights into cause–effect relationships. Needless to say, these limitations and the resultant proposals
would benefit from further investigations.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Sima Khezrlou holds a PhD degree in TESOL from Urmia University, Iran. Her research interests include instructed second
language acquisition, form-focused instruction, task-based language teaching and CALL. In addition to a number of pub-
lications in these fields, her most recent studies include a co-authored article in System (2017, with Rod Ellis and Karim
Sadeghi) and studies that appear in RELC (2019) and English Teaching and Learning (2019).

References
Ahmadian, Mohammad Javad and Mansoor Tavakoli. 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: 23–49. doi:10.1177/1362168810383329.
Bitchener, John and Dana Ferris. 2012. Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. London,
England: Routledge.
Blaxton, Teresa. 1989. Investigating dissociations among memory measures: support for a transfer-appropriate proces-
sing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15: 657–668. doi:10.1037/
0278-7393.15.4.657.
Bygate, Martin. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Researching Pedagogic
Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, ed. Peter Skehan and Michael Swain, 23–48. Harlow: Longman.
Bygate, Martin and Virginia Samuda. 2005. Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In Planning and Task
Performance in Second Language, ed. Rod Ellis, 37–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Collins, Laura. 2012. Form-focused instruction. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by Carol Chapelle, 2187–
2190. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
DeKeyser, Robert. 2007. Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, Robert. 2015. Skill acquisition theory. In Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, ed. Bill
VanPatten and Jessica Williams, 94–112. New York: Routledge.
Doughty, Catherine and Jessica Williams. 1998. Issues and terminology. In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition, ed. Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams, 1–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elder, Catherine and Diane Manwaring. 2004. The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning out-
comes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness 13: 145–162. doi:10.1080/
09658410408667092.
Ellis, Rod. 2006. Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly 40: 83–107. doi:10.2307/
40264512.
Ellis, Rod. 2015. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 2016. Focus on form: a critical review. Language Teaching Research 20: 405–428. doi:10.1177/
1362168816628627.
Hawkes, Martin L. 2012. Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal 66: 327–336.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccr059.
Hinkel, Eli. 2002. Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn). In New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second
Language Classrooms, ed. Eli Hinkel and Sandra Fotos, 233–259. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hu, Guangwei. 2002. Psychological Constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language pro-
duction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, no. 3: 347–386. doi:10.1017/S0272263102003017.
Hu, Guangwei. 2011. Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners. System 39: 63–77.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.01.011.
Kim, YouJin and Nicole Tracy-Ventura. 2013. The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: what needs to be
repeated during task-based interaction? System 41, no. 3: 829–840. doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005.
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 13

Lyster, Ranta. 2017. Content-based language teaching. In The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language
Acquisition, ed. Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato, 87–107. New York: Routledge.
Manchon, Rosa M. 2014. The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through
writing. In Task-based Language Learning: Insights from and for L2 Writing, ed. Heidi Byrnes and Rosa M. Manchon,
27–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nitta, Ryo and Kyoko Baba. 2014. Task repetition and L2 writing development: a longitudinal study from a dynamic
systems perspective. In Task-based Language Learning: Insights from and for L2 Writing, ed. Heidi Byrnes and Rosa
M. Manchon, 107–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Norris, John M and Lourdes Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-
analysis. Language Learning 50, no. 3: 417–528. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136.
Polio, Charlene. 2012. The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal
of Second Language Writing 21: 375–389. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004.
Qin, Jingjing. 2008. The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice.
Language Teaching Research 12: 61–82. doi:10.1177/1362168807084494.
Roehr, Karen. 2010. Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching. AILA Review 23: 7–29. doi:10.
1075/aila.23.02roe.
Sheppard, Cristopher and Rod Ellis. 2018. The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated per-
formance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. In Language Learning Through Task Repetition, ed.
Martin Bygate, 177–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shintani, Natsuko. 2015. The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young
beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly 49: 115–140. doi:10.1002/tesq.166.
Shintani, Natsuko. 2017. The effects of the timing of isolated FFI on the explicit knowledge and written accuracy of lear-
ners with different prior knowledge of the linguistic target. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39, no. 1: 129–166.
doi:10.1017/S0272263116000127.
Shintani, Natsuko, Rod Ellis and Wataru Suzuki. 2014. Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in
using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning 64: 103–131. doi:10.1111/lang.12029.
Skehan, Peter. 1996. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17, no. 1: 38–62.
doi:10.1093/applin/17.1.38.
Skehan, Peter. 2014. Processing Perspectives on Task Performance. London: John Benjamins.
Spada, Nina and Patsy Lightbown. 2008. Form-focused instruction: isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly 42, no. 2: 181–
207. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00115.x.
Spada, Nina and Yasuyo Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: a meta-
analysis. Language Learning 60: 263–308. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x.
Spada, Nina, Patsy Lightbown and Lydia White. 2005. The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-
focused instruction. In Current Issues in Instructed Second Language Learning, ed. Alex Housen and Michel Pierrard,
199–234. Brussels, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Spada, Nina, Lorena Jessop, Yasuyo Tomita, Wataru Suzuki and Antonella Valeo. 2014. Isolated and integrated form-
focused instruction: effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research 18, no. 4: 453–473.
doi:10.1177/1362168813519883.
Tavakoli, Parvaneh, Campbell Colin and Joan McCormack. 2016. Development of speech fluency over a short period of
time: effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly 50: 447–471. doi:10.1002/tesq.244.
Thai, Chau and Frank Boers. 2016. Repeating a monologue uunder increasing time pressure: effects on fluency, complex-
ity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly 50: 369–393. doi:10.1002/tesq.232.
Valeo, Antonella and Nina Spada. 2016. Is there a better time to focus on form? Teacher and learner views. TESOL
Quarterly 50: 314–339. doi:10.1002/tesq.222.
van Beuningen, Catherine, Nivja de Jong and Folkert Kuiken. 2008. Learning and teaching L2 writing. ITL - International
Journal of Applied Linguistics 156: 279–296.
VanPatten, Bill and Jessica Williams. 2015. Theories in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Vercellotti, Mary Lou. 2017. The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: a
longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics 38, no. 1: 90–111. doi:10.1093/applin/amv002.
Wang, Grace and Seok-Dong Wang. 2014. Explicit grammar instruction for EFL writing and editing: an exploratory study
at a Korean University. Linguistics and Literature Studies 2: 65–73. doi:10.13189/lls.2014.020204.
Williams, Jessica and Jacqueline Evans. 1998. What kind of focus and on which form? In Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition, ed. Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams, 139–155. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.