TR refers to when learners carry out a task more than once and the first performance is viewed as a preparation for subsequent performances (Ellis, 2009). There are diverse types of repetition, such as repetition of the same task procedure with same content (exact task repetition), same procedure with different content (procedural repetition) and same content with different procedure (content repetition) (Patanasorn, 2010). In the present study, TR is operationalized as repeating the same task procedure and content. The utility of TR has been clarified based on Skehan’s (1998) trade-off hypothesis which claims that because of the limited capacity of working memory, learners are not able to concurrently focus on both form and meaning and thus they prioritize one over the other. But, as learners repeat tasks, they are likely to divert their attention to form and produce language that is more accurate and successful (Bygate, 2001). Improvements in output as a result of TR may also be accounted for with reference to Levelt’s (1989) model of speech production. Speech production, as conceptualized by this model, entails three stages: conceptualization, formulation, and articulation. In the conceptualization, the content of the message is planned. Provided that the content remains unchanged in the repeated task, then less time would be needed to decide what to say when the production is done again. This will thus enable the learner to dedicate more processing resources to the retrieval of the language to encode the message (formulation) and deliver it (articulation), leading to higher linguistic accuracy and complexity.

To date, numerous studies have tested these claims following three main research streams (see Table 1 for a summary of TR studies): the comparison of TR types and their effectiveness (e.g., Carver & Kim, 2020; Gass et al., 1999; Khezrlou, 2019b; Lynch & MacLean, 2000), the transfer of TR effects to a new task (e.g., Kim & Tracy-Ventura, 2013; Sheppard & Ellis, 2018), and the impacts of intervention or “enhanced repetition” as Lynch (2018) puts it on subsequent task performances (e.g., Hawkes, 2012; Hsu, 2019; Kartchava & Nassaji, 2019; Khezrlou, 2019c, 2020b; Sheppard, 2006 as cited in Ellis, 2009; Sheppard & Ellis, 2018). With respect to the first area, evidence in favor of repeating the same tasks in enhancing fluency and complexity has been furnished, with controversial results concerning accuracy. Regarding the transfer of TR effect, previous research (Bygate, 2001; Gass et al., 1999; Patanasorn, 2010) has demonstrated that the effects of repeating the same task may not be carried over to a new task. Yet, some recent studies (e.g., Khezrlou, 2021; Sheppard & Ellis, 2018) showed the opposite.

“The justification for task repetition as a pedagogic device must lie in whether its effects transfer to a new task (i.e., impacts on development)” (Sheppard & Ellis, p. 190, 2018). To achieve this, some form of intervention to direct learners’ attention to language form is needed (Ellis, 2019). As highlighted by Kartchava and Nassaji (2019), when learners are subjected to intervention followed by TR and practice, their attention would be guided towards language that can bring about remarkable enhancement in their subsequent output. The pioneering study by Hawkes (2012) explored the role of direct instruction and follow-up practice of grammatical and pragmatic structures and vocabulary on Japanese learners’ repeated task performance. It was found that learners could focus on form in their second enactment, resulting in enhancements in the use of lexis, grammar, and partially, pronunciation. In Sheppard’s (2006, as cited in Ellis, 2009) study, Japanese learners received corrective feedback after their first task performance which led to improvements in fluency, complexity, and notably in accuracy. The use of stimulated recall after the first task performance in Sheppard and Ellis’s (2018) study, however, was unsuccessful in focusing learners’ attention on form. In another study, Khezrlou (2021) concluded that the provision of explicit instruction between performances of the same task resulted in learners’ explicit and delayed implicit knowledge development. Lastly, Khezrlou (2019b) looked into the role of task repetition and procedural repetition with input-providing or output-prompting oral corrective feedback in the development of regular and irregular past tense structures. Results underscored the superiority of output-prompting corrective feedback regardless of repetition type or linguistic structure.

Overall, these studies lend support to Lynch’s (2018) argument that intervention is “enhanced repetition” referring to “the opportunity to engage in some sort of cognitive activity related to the first run” (p. 196). Nevertheless, this area of research within the TR literature has only recently begun to attract widespread attention from the TBLT researchers. Not until recently have there been calls to explore the role of involving learners’ in reflecting on their initial task performance and the resulting effects on subsequent task performances (see Ellis et al., 2020). Hence, the present study provides insights into the added value of learner reflection in repeated task performance.

In reflective learning, reflection refers to a process that is beyond thinking and signifies a critical consideration of an issue which entails increased consciousness (Kellenberg et al., 2017). It is commonly viewed as a precious attribute likely to foster learning through deliberate and perceptive thinking about former experiences (Moon, 2004). These accounts of reflection, then, highlight it as the key to learning from experience that can be used in new contexts. Hence, reflection is generally linked to experiential learning which considers the experience as the nucleus of the learning process (Jarmon et al., 2009). The experience-based nature of reflection is represented in Kolb’s (1984, 2014) four-phase model (see Figure 1). This model is built on a concrete experience (phase 1) followed by the perception of and reflection on this experience (phase 2) which leads to a more distinctive understanding of the situation (phase 3) and subsequently helps the individual to put knowledge into practice in new contexts. Applied into the context of L2 learning, it is argued that since the reflective learning practice promotes learners’ constant reflection on their past task performance and language use, this consecutively conscious reflection could augment the task performance and eventually advance learners’ attention to form (Dao et al., 2020).

The significant role of reflection in different educational contexts is well established (see Farrell, 2011), but its positive effects in the TBLT literature have not been underlined until recently. Based on the results of two case studies, Lam (2018), for instance, underscores the importance of self-reflection in Showcase Portfolio Approach in helping learners understand “where they are, where they want to go and what is next in their writing development” (p. 230). Put differently, reflection upon the showpiece dossiers enables learners to become aware of their writing standards and attempt to bridge the gaps between the existing and desired task performances. Self-reflection through keeping a diary, according to Svalberg (2012), can also figure in consciousness-raising tasks based on which learners evaluate the task as a means to learning and engagement with language. Involving learners in reflective activities has also been suggested by Ellis et al. (2020) as one type of post-task methodological options that is built on the main task. Ellis et al. (2020) classify reflection activities into two types: reflective accounts and transcription. They state that learners’ reflective accounts include self-reports about their task performance, the knowledge that they gain from their performance, their assessment of task design features, and their views on how to upgrade the experience. Transcription as the other reflective choice proposed by Ellis et al. refers to learners’ provision of a transcript of their own or a peer’s task performance.

Although the second category, namely transcription, has been previously explored by Hsu (2019) and Kartchava and Nassaji (2019), the use of a questionnaire to obtain learners’ opinions about their task performance has not been investigated so far. Hsu (2019) examined whether asking learners to transcribe their first oral narrative task performance could enhance the complexity, accuracy and fluency of their repeated and a new task of the same type performances. Results indicated that compared to the TR only group, the post-task transcribing condition resulted in more accurate production of clauses in the repeated task that was also transferred to the new task. However, it did not benefit complexity or fluency. Kartchava and Nassaji’s (2019) study revealed that feedback on technology-based oral presentation and reflection on performance brought about overall effective task performance. More recently, Dao, Nguyen and Chi (2020) examined whether self-reflection could promote 68 adolescent Vietnamese EFL learners’ attention to form during peer interaction. The analysis of learners’ produced language-related episodes revealed that this experience enabled them to self-correct their language errors and engage in metalinguistic talks. It was also found that the use of learned skills through practice depended on learners’ proficiency and perceptions of their partner’s performance.

It is likely that encouraging learners to reflect on their first task performance with respect to the strengths, weaknesses, and plans for progress, may boost the following iteration (Kartchava & Nassaji, 2019). In addition, reflection may have the advantage of directing learners’ attention to the three stages of speech production and therefore cultivate their accurate linguistic production. The potential of reflective practice for L2 development and the scarcity of research in this area point to the need for further research. In light of this, the current study was conducted to investigate the following research question:

A between-subjects design was adopted to explore the impacts of self-reflection between repeated task performances on L2 development. The independent variable is TR condition: (1) task repetition only (TR, control) and (2) task repetition with self-reflection (TR+SR). Learners in each group produced oral language elicited by means of two picture-cued oral narrative tasks. Their oral task performances were analyzed in terms of accurate use of the target structure. This study was based on Kolb’s (2014) four levels of reflective practice: concrete experience (participants first performed the oral narrative task), reflective observation (participants reflected on and interpreted their performance based on recalling the experiences by filling out the reflection questionnaire), abstract conceptualization (participants connected pieces of the experiences and tried to learn from them) and active experimentation (participants were encouraged to put what they had learned into the performance of the subsequent tasks). The study design is exhibited in Figure 2.

A total of 31 learners from two general English classes in a higher education college in Iran voluntarily agreed to participate in the present study. This course is instructed over one semester and consists of around thirteen teaching weeks of 1.5 hour sessions twice a week. Admission to this college is based on the nation-wide entrance exam performance. Learners in each class were randomly assigned into one condition: TR (N = 17) and TR+SR (N = 14). Participants comprised 12 male and 19 female learners ranging in age from 16 to 21. Their first language was Turkish and/or Kurdish and they also spoke in Farsi as the official language in Iran. All of them had been studying English for at least 5 years starting from the junior high school. Their proficiency level was A2 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) as determined by a standardized test (Cambridge Key English Test or KET). The results of an independent samples t-test indicated no significant differences between the groups (p = .342) regarding their level of English proficiency. Since English is a foreign language in Iran, participants did not have any opportunity to use the language outside the classroom and none had ever been to or lived in any English-speaking countries prior to the study. All participants signed informed consent forms prior to data collection.

This study attempted to measure the effect of TR condition on learners’ development of English regular past tense structure. Although the past tense structure is introduced to the learners in quite early stages of learning, it still poses challenges to them even at high levels (Ellis et al., 2006). This difficulty is partially related to the phonological challenge triggered by the consonant clusters with final [t] or [d] for Asian learners of English (Ellis et al., 2006).

The tasks used in this study were adopted from Heaton (1975). The first task, ‘The winner’ was implemented as the main task and the repeated tasks, and the second task, ‘Landslide’, served as the new task of the same type but with different content. They were both narrative tasks that entailed six wordless pictures presented chronologically. Participants were asked to look at the pictures and tell the story to the researcher who only used backchannels such as I see, OK, hmm during the narration. They had to narrate the story in an understandable manner that even those who have not seen the pictures could understand it. They were permitted to look at the pictures during the story telling. The results of a pilot study indicated that learners completed the task in no more than 20 min. There were three major reasons behind opting for this task. First, the majority of previous TR studies have used this type of task. Second, this task directs more attention to meaning than form which is the crucial requisite of focus on form (Park, 2010). Additionally, this task requires imagination and analysis by the learner making it a cognitively demanding task and thereby limiting focus on form (Ellis & Yuan, 2004). All the narrative productions of participants were audio recorded via a digital voice recorder.

Learners were encouraged to reflect on their first task performance by filling out a questionnaire which was developed for the purpose of this study (see Appendix A). The questionnaire included 27 items, to which the participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The content of the questionnaire was arrived at by adopting Ellis et al.’s (2020) proposal that learners’ reflective accounts as self-reports need to be about five themes:

Additionally, nine English teachers all with PhDs in TESOL were interviewed to provide general feedback about the questionnaire regarding whether the items could appropriately induce learners to reflect on their task performance experience in general and the target structure in particular. Teachers’ feedback led to a better evaluation of the face and content validity of the questionnaire items. Based on these guidelines, 32 statements in English were composed to measure the five constructs. The questionnaire was then translated into Farsi. A classroom-based pilot study was conducted to trial the questionnaire with 108 Iranian learners of English. To find out the construct validity of the questionnaire, an exploratory factor analysis was run using varimax rotation. A five-factor solution was found which aligned closely with Ellis et al.’s suggested dimensions (Learned Knowledge, Task Performance, Task Design, Attitude, and Improvement). Yet, because nine items loaded very weakly, they were eliminated and four new items related to the five factors were developed. Thus, the revised questionnaire included 27 items. Questions 1–4 concern the knowledge that learners gained as a result of doing the task. Questions 5–10 relate to their task performance. Questions 11–16 examine the task design features influencing their task experience. And, while questions 17–21 focus on learners’ beliefs and attitudes towards the task, Questions 22–27 emphasize their opinions about the improvement of their task performance experience. The reliability of the questionnaire was also estimated using Cronbach’s alpha (α = .93). Participants were given at most 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire-as identified in the pilot study.

This study was carried out in a quiet room after learners’ regular class time. The treatment lasted over a 3-week period. The researcher met with each learner five times and each task completion session took approximately 20 to 40 minutes. The procedure instructions were in Farsi. One week before the study, participants were screened using the KET. Session two began in the next week. Participants in both groups were provided with a five-minute preparation time and then performed ‘The winner’ task for the first time. In session three in the same week, participants repeated the same task. However, although the TR+SR experimental group learners were asked to fill out the self-reflection questionnaire before the second task performance, the control group learners repeated the task without any self-reflection opportunities. Two days later, participants repeated the same task once again. Lastly, they enacted the ‘Landslide’ task as the new task with the same procedure but with different content. It should be mentioned that no counterbalancing was used in this study.

The recorded oral narratives were transcribed to identify the obligatory contexts. An obligatory context consisted of a sentence in which learners had to use an exemplar of the target linguistic form to make it grammatically correct. Subsequently, the erroneous and non- or overuse of the target structure were determined as incorrect. The overuse referred to the oversupply of an exemplar of the target form in a context where the exemplar was ungrammatical. The percentage of correct use was attained using the following formula which demonstrates the sum of obligatory contexts and overuse.

Number of forms supplied correctly

  × 100

Number of obligatory contexts + number of overused forms

To ascertain the coding consistency, a second rater who was an Associate Professor in a public university in Iran and the researcher scored the data. Cohen’s Kappa was used to assess inter-rater reliability with the resulting value of .98. All the discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0. The alpha level was set at .05 for between-group analyses. To examine which type of TR condition resulted in the accurate use of the target structure, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with time (Time 1, Time 2, Time 3, and Time 4) as a within-subject variable, self-reflection (TR+SR, TR) as a between-subject variable, and participant performance regarding accurate structure use as the dependent variable. Independent samples t-tests were used to compare the two groups’ performance. Partial eta-squared (ηp2) and d values were used to estimate effect sizes. Based on the discipline-specific benchmarks proposed by Plonsky and Oswald (2014), for ηp2, an effect size of .40 was considered small, .70 was interpreted as medium, and 1.00 was taken as a large effect. According to Plonsky and Oswald’s criteria for interpreting the magnitude of d, .60 was considered small, 1.00 medium, and 1.40 large. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the data were all normally distributed (p > .05). Furthermore, Levene’s tests verified the homogeneity of variance among all sets of group means compared in the analyses (p > .05). Additionally, the assumption of Sphericity using Mauchly’s test was also met, χ2(5) = 21.61, p = .27. Finally, to evaluate each group’s development over time, a number of paired sample t-tests were used for within-group comparisons. To avoid Type I error because of numerous comparisons, the significance level was adjusted to .0125, and values of p ≤ .01 were accepted to be significant.