Do students really get bored repeating the same speaking task six times?
Task repetition (practicing by repeating the same task) is considered an effective way to improve speaking fluency. However, many teachers are hesitant to adopt this practice. The reason is the concern that "students might get bored and lose motivation if they repeat the same thing."
This article introduces a 2023 study that addressed this concern through an experiment. The authors are Keiko Hanzawa and Yuichi Suzuki. They had learners perform the same task six times with different spacing intervals and tracked both the learners' "perceptions" and their "actual improvement."
---
What the study investigated
The subjects were 64 Japanese university students (with an average of about 6 years of English learning experience, equivalent to CEFR A2-B1 on the TOEIC). All participants performed the same picture description speaking task (a task where they tell a story in English based on six illustrations) six times, but the schedule was divided into three patterns.
Massed group (n=20): Performed 6 times consecutively without breaks
Short-spaced group (n=23): Performed 3 times in the first half of the class, followed by 3 times in the second half after a 45-minute break for a different activity
Long-spaced group (n=21): Performed 6 times in total over two weeks, 3 times per week
Immediately after the 6th session, the following two types of surveys were conducted.
Metacognitive judgment: "How many repetitions did you feel were effective?" (using questions from Lambert, Kormos, & Minn (2017))
Emotional engagement: 11 items regarding enjoyment and concentration, rated on a 7-point scale (partially modified from questions by Lambert, Philp, & Nakamura (2017))
Furthermore, the speech itself was processed using speech analysis software (PRAAT), and the "mean length of run" (the average number of syllables uttered between pauses; an indicator of fluency reflecting both speed and lack of hesitation) was measured from the 1st to the 6th session to compare self-assessment with actual improvement.
---
Result 1: Repetitive practice was generally received favorably
First, as a premise, contrary to the common concern that "repetitive practice is painful," participants overall responded that "repeating the same task is an effective and motivating activity." The average number of repetitions they felt were effective was 4.66 (SD=1.43), suggesting that the latter half of the six repetitions, around the 4th or 5th time, felt "just right." Emotional evaluations (averaging 3.9–4.0 out of 7 for both enjoyment and concentration) were also slightly above the midpoint, indicating that the reaction was not clearly negative.
Result 2: The spaced-practice group felt it was more enjoyable and effective
Looking at the differences by schedule, the "number of repetitions felt to be effective" was lowest in the massed group (average 3.9 times), followed by the short-interval group (4.8 times) and the long-interval group (5.1 times). A one-way ANOVA confirmed a significant difference (F(2,61)=4.8, p=.01, η²=.14, a large effect size), and multiple comparisons showed that the difference between the massed group and the long-interval group was particularly large (p=.01, d=-0.94).
Regarding the emotional aspect, first, an ANOVA comparing the three groups (massed, short-interval, and long-interval) showed no significant difference in enjoyment (F(2,61)=2.1, p=.14), and concentration showed a trend approaching significance (F(2,61)=2.94, p=.06). Since there was almost no difference between the short-interval and long-interval groups, these two were combined into a "spaced group" and a t-test was conducted again comparing them to the massed group. The spaced group showed significantly higher evaluations in both enjoyment (t(62)=2.04, p=.046, d=0.55) and concentration (t(62)=2.44, p=.02, d=0.66).
Result 3: Whether you can evaluate yourself correctly depends on the length of the interval
This is the core of this paper. When we examined the correlation between self-evaluation (metacognitive judgment) and actual improvement in fluency, the patterns were clearly divided by group.
Short-interval group: Significant correlation between self-evaluation and actual improvement (r=.44, p=.03). The feeling of "how much I improved" almost matched the actual improvement.
Massed group: No correlation between self-evaluation and actual improvement (r=-.28, p=.23). On the other hand, another analysis (described in the appendix) suggests that self-evaluation was strongly correlated with the evaluation of "enjoyment," implying that they may have based their self-evaluation on "whether it was fun" rather than actual improvement.
Long-interval group: No correlation between self-evaluation and actual improvement (r=.10, p=.67).
The phenomenon observed in the intensive group, where students rated themselves higher than their actual improvement, is known in psychology as the 'illusion of high competence.' Because they were able to speak the best in the moment as a result of cramming without breaks (in fact, the intensive group showed the highest fluency on the sixth attempt), it is thought that they were more likely to associate 'doing it well' with 'having improved.'
Furthermore, in the intensive group, apart from self-assessment, the level of concentration correlated with the actual improvement in fluency (r=.46, p=.04). This means that even with cramming practice, learners who were able to engage with high concentration actually improved.
---
Points of interest
What I found genuinely interesting is that the teacher's intuitive concern that 'repetitive practice is disliked' was not strongly supported by this experiment. Even in individual (working silently alone) speaking practice, the results were positive, similar to previous studies involving pair work (Lambert, Kormos, & Minn, 2017).
On the other hand, a highlight of this study is that it goes beyond the conclusion that 'spacing is better' and delves into the 'length of the interval,' showing that results vary. The short interval (45 minutes) satisfied both the accuracy of self-assessment and emotional engagement, but while the long interval (one week apart) showed high emotional engagement, it did not show a correlation in self-assessment accuracy, similar to the intensive group. In other words, it is not a simple case of 'the longer the interval, the better,' and the authors also recommend an interval that is 'neither too short nor too long.'
However, the number of participants in each group was small, ranging from 20 to 23, and the authors themselves mention the results of a power analysis (estimating that 39 people would be needed to detect a correlation in the long-interval group), stating that the analysis results for each group should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, the task used this time was well-supported with resources like vocabulary lists, and the results might change under conditions with less support, in pair formats, or with procedural repetition (repetition where the content changes).
---
Relevance to the classroom
Many teachers may feel hesitant about making students do the same task over and over, but as far as this study shows, there is no need to assume that 'repetition equals pain.' However, the fact that how it is done changes both how learners feel and the accuracy of their self-assessment is directly applicable to practice.
Instead of having them do it six times in a row, inserting a different activity for about 30 to 45 minutes after the third time tends to increase both motivation and concentration.
The number of repetitions students feel is effective is roughly four to five. This can serve as a guideline when designing repetitive practice menus.
Immediately after intensive practice, students are more likely to feel like they have improved more than they actually have. It is important not to judge based solely on the student's own sense of progress, but to provide opportunities to review recordings or records later.
Conversely, it is also worth noting that if the intervals are too long (such as once a week), students may not be able to accurately grasp their own progress, even if their emotional engagement remains positive.
---
References
Hanzawa, Keiko, Suzuki, Yuichi (2023). How Do Learners Perceive Task Repetition? Distributed Practice Effects on Engagement and Metacognitive Judgment
[https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1389125](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1389125)