Language Teaching Research-2003-Adams-347-76.pdf

7/27/2019 Language Teaching Research-2003-Adams-347-76.pdf

1/31

http://ltr.sagepub.com/Language Teaching Research

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1191/1362168803lr127oa

2003 7: 347Language Teaching ResearchRebecca Adams

L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Language Teaching ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 1, 2003Version of Record>>

at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347.refs.htmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347.refs.htmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347.full.pdfhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347.full.pdfhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347http://ltr.sagepub.com/


2/31

L2 output, reformulation and noticing:

implications for IL development

Rebecca Adams Georgetown University

This study is a replication and extension of Swain and Lapkins (in

press) study of the developmental effects of learners noticing

differences between their own and native speaker output. In their

study, task repetition, noticing and participation in stimulated recalls

were all factors that might have contributed to more targetlike usage

in subsequent output. The current study separated the effects of each

of these factors. Fifty-six L2 Spanish learners were randomly assigned

to three groups: (1) Task repetition (participants repeated the tasks

without additional treatment); (2) Noticing (participants repeated the

task and compared their original output to NS reformulation); and

(3) Noticing + SR (same as Noticing group with the addition of a

stimulated recall session). Reformulations were traced throughout the

learners output. Analysis of the data indicates that learners noticed

differences between their own essays and the reformulated writing, and

that there were quantitative differences in the output of participants

from different treatment groups, with learners who participated in

both noticing and stimulated recall incorporating significantly more

targetlike forms in the post-treatment output than learners from the

other groups.

I Introduction

This study is an investigation of the effects of noticing and

measures of noticing on second language learning through writing

tasks. It is a replication and extension of Swain and Lapkins (in

press) study of noticing through reformulated writing and its

impact on second language learning. In addition to replicating the

prior study, the current study seeks to tease apart the effects of

noticing and of task repetition on the incorporation of targetlike

forms in second language writing.

Arnold 2003 10.1191/1362168803lr127oa

Address for correspondence: Rebecca Adams, Linguistics Department, ICC 460, George-

town University, Washington, DC 20057; e-mail: [email protected]

Language Teaching Research 7,3 (2003); pp. 347376


3/31

1 Writing in second language acquisition

The Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) characterizes the nature

of second language learning through interaction and asserts that

meaningful interaction in the second language is a necessary(although not sufficient) condition for learners to acquire second

language competence. Longs explanation indicates that while

interaction cannot explain the entire phenomenon of second

language learning, it is highly unlikely if not impossible for learners

to acquire second language communicative competence without

engaging in meaningful interaction. The hypothesis brings together

insights from Hatchs (1978) contention that conversation and

comprehension are essential to the development of secondlanguage communicative competence as well as Swains (1985,

1995) explanation of the importance of output in language

acquisition. Swain proposed the Output Hypothesis, which suggests

that output in the L2 is related to second language learning. Swain

(1995) explains that output pushes learners to process language

more deeply (with more mental effort) than does input (p. 126),

suggesting that output is not the result of the language learningprocess, but rather a step in the process.

Swain (1995) outlines several reasons why the act of producing

output in the second language might lead to second language

development. These reasons include noticing, hypothesis testing,

and internalizing metalinguistic information. Her claims about

noticing within the output hypothesis draw on work from Schmidt

(1990; Schmidt and Frota, 1986), who claims that learners need to

notice a form before they can acquire it. Noticing can take placewhen learners, in the process of generating output, perceive that

they do not know how to express their intended meaning. A

specific aspect of noticing, noticing the gap, occurs when learners

receive corrective feedback and notice that it differs from their

original output. The primary aim of Swain and Lapkin (in press),

the study extended here, is to explore the relationship between

noticing in writing to development in the use of targetlike forms.Swain and Lapkin hypothesized that allowing learners to compare

their own writing with native-speaker reformulations would push

learners to notice gaps in their second language production, which

would in turn allow them to develop the missing linguistic

information. The noticing hypothesis and its relationship to the

348 L2 output, reformulation and noticing


4/31

current study will be discussed in more detail below.

Writing and speaking are the two modalities that require

learners to produce output. While both writing and speaking can

allow learners to notice differences between their language andnative speak, to test their IL hypotheses, and to internalize

linguistic information, there are important differences between

speech and writing that have often been overlooked in the

discussion of output. Speech is ephemeral in order for learners

to notice the differences between their speech and that of others,

they presumably need sufficient processing space available to hold

both versions in memory and compare them. Preliminary support

for the connection between working memory and learning frominteraction has been found in recent empirical work (Mackey et

al., 2002a; Mackey et al., 2002b) and working memory capacity has

been included as a factor in models of forms-processing (Doughty,

2001) and of lexical knowledge acquisition (Ellis, 2001). With the

ongoing processing demands of conversation, it is possible that

learners are not always able to do make this comparison. When

learners write and receive corrective feedback, however, they areable to compare their own output with the written response of the

NS, easing the processing demands. Conversely, speaking is an

online activity there is little time for erasing or drafting in speech.

Thus, when looking at writing for evidence of second language

development, it is important to remember that learners writing

may conceal self-corrections and other evidence of developing

interlanguage rules or may reflect instructed rules that have not

necessarily become part of learners internal grammar.

2 Writing and feedback

Feedback on second language learners writing is an issue of

concern to both language teachers and second language

researchers. While teacher education literature often prescribes

certain methods of giving feedback on writing (Reid, 1982), very

little empirical research on the effectiveness of written feedback

techniques has been conducted to date (Carson, 2001; Hyland,

1998; Paulus, 1999). In the growing empirical literature, many

common methods of providing feedback for second language

writing have been called into question. Methods such as peer

Rebecca Adams 349


5/31

review (De Guerro and Vamil, 2000; Mendoca and Johnson, 1994;

Paulus, 1999; Zhang, 1995), teacher written corrections (Conrad

and Goldstein, 1999; Hedgecock and Lefkowitz, 1994; Hyland,

1998; Kepner, 1991), and teacherlearner oral writing conferences(Hedgecock and Lefkowitz, 1992, 1996; Hyland, 2000;Kassen, 1988;

Shi, 1998) have been challenged, as have notions such as the multi-

draft model of feedback, in which teachers give feedback first on

content, commenting on form only in later drafts (Ashwell, 2000).

The studies mentioned above have challenged teacher and

researcher assumptions about second language writing. Some of

these criticisms of writing correction are specifically relevant to the

current study. For example, some researchers investigate thepossibility that traditional feedback can be discouraging to L2

learners (Hyland, 1998). Papers returned covered with marks can

seem overwhelming, and teachers are rarely able to truly balance

positive and negative feedback (Hedgecock and Lefkowitz, 1994).

Additionally, written corrections can be confusing to L2 learners,

as it is often difficult for learners to determine exactly what in their

output is non-targetlike from written comments only (Hyland,1998). Because traditional feedback methods commonly prescribe

marking only what is incorrect in learners work, they may present

learners with mostly negative evidence (Kassen, 1988) and lack

sufficient positive evidence to refine IL hypotheses. Finally,

corrections (especially from NSs and teachers) tend to be received

passively by learners (Hedgecock and Lefkowitz, 1994; Hyland,

2000). Such corrections therefore may not push learners to use the

information to test their IL hypotheses and internalize the

linguistic evidence.

3 Reformulated writing

The form of correction employed in this study and in Swain and

Lapkins study, reformulated writing, avoids these potential

problems with traditional written feedback. Reformulated writing

is a specific sort of written feedback that may serve as a partial

response to these issues (Cohen, 1983; Swain and Lapkin, in press).

Cohen defines reformulation as having a native writer of the target

language rewrite the learners essay, preserving all the learners

ideas, making it sound as nativelike as possible (1983: 4). Rather



6/31

than correcting (pointing out learner errors for them),

reformulators rewrite learner texts as a NS would write them. The

content is left intact, but the language is made nativelike. As

Allwright et al. (1988) explain, making a learner text nativelikeinvolves making changes at multiple levels, including syntactic,

morphological, and lexical changes. They found that when

reformulated writing was used in a class setting, discussion of

reformulated texts was an important part of using the technique,

and they called for studies of learners rationale for making

changes in their writing. Brooks and Swain (2001) incorporated

these ideas in a study of four pairs of adults engaged in comparing

texts they created as dyads in a task with reformulated versions oftheir texts. They found that learners in a dyad could fill the expert

role in discussing writing, but when neither of the dyads had

sufficient L2 knowledge, they turned to the reformulation as the

expert.

In some ways, reformulations may be thought of as an extended,

written recast, in that they provide both implicit negative evidence

that some form was non-targetlike as well as positive evidence ofhow the idea could be expressed in a targetlike manner (for a

review of the role of recasts as oral feedback, see Nicholas et al.,

2001). Reformulated writing also allows learners opportunities to

compare their own original writing with NS reformulations. In

addition, since the errors are not pointed out for the learners, the

use of reformulated writing can push learners to actively seek

differences between their IL and the TL, leading to noticing, which

in turn may lead to IL development. Qi and Lapkin (2001) found

that the learners noticed differences between their own and

reformulated writing. This sort of noticing facilitated by

reformulated writing has been related to improvements in later

revisions (Qi and Lapkin, 2001; Swain and Lapkin, in press).

4 Noticing and learning

Several areas of research, including research on attention (Leow,

1997), awareness (Tomlin and Villa, 1994), and memory (Robinson,

1995; in press) have implicated noticing as a necessary condition

for second language development. For purposes of this study,

Schmidts (2001) definition of noticing has been adopted. Schmidt

Rebecca Adams 351


7/31

limits noticing to a very low level of abstraction . . . assuming that

the objects of attention and noticing are elements of the surface

structure of utterances in the input instances of language, rather

than any abstract rules or principles (p. 5). The purpose of this

restricted definition is to separate metalinguistic awareness from

noticing by limiting noticing to awareness at a very low level of

abstraction (Schmidt, 2001: 5). Noticing can be prompted, as

discussed above, when learners, in the context of interaction,

realize that they do not know the necessary forms to express a

given meaning. Noticing can also occur when learners allocate

attentional resources to specific features in the input (Schmidt,

1990), or when forms are made salient through interactionalfeedback (Leeman, in 2003; Long, 1996; Nicholas et al., 2001; Pica,

1994, 1997). In both of these situations, learners are able to

compare their own interlanguage forms with the targetlike forms

supplied in the input and determine where discrepancies lie. This

aspect of noticing is also referred to as noticing the gap

(Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 2001; Schmidt and Frota, 1986; Swain,

1995).

While the debate about the role of noticing in SLA theory and

second language research methodology is on-going (Schmidt, 2001;

Truscott, 1998), several studies indicate that noticing at least

facilitates learning (Ellis, 1994; Lapkin and Swain, 2001; Schmidt

and Frota, 1986; Schmidt, 1990; Swain, 1993, 1995, 1998). Mackey

(2000) investigated the effects of learners noticing the gap through

interactional feedback in the classroom on the development of

morphosyntactic and lexical forms. The results indicated thatlearners who demonstrated more noticing developed more

accurate use of certain, but not all, of the forms investigated. Izumi

and Bigelow (2000) found that noticing led to learning as well, but

that this was mitigated by the type of task used to promote

noticing. Because reformulations can be used to encourage

learners to notice differences between their own output and

reformulated output, they can facilitate noticing the gap, which can

in turn influence second language development.



8/31

5 Swain and Lapkin (in press)

As noted earlier, this research study is a replication and extension

of Swain and Lapkin (in press), which investigated the effect of

reformulated writing on learner noticing and development. InSwain and Lapkins study, a pair of English L1 learners in a French

immersion programme was asked to participate in a jigsaw task.

Each learner was given half of a picture story and instructed to

interact orally to put together the entire story. They were then

instructed to write the story collaboratively. The story was given to

a NS of French to reformulate; the original story and the

reformulation were given to the learners and they were asked to

find the differences between the two versions. Following thenoticing session, the learners participated in a stimulated recall

protocol of the noticing session in order to determine whether

noticing had actually taken place. Based on the learners discourse

during the noticing session and their verbal reports, it was

determined that the learners did notice differences between their

IL and the reformulation. As a post-test, a week after the original

task session, each learner was individually provided with theoriginal story and instructed to correct the errors.

Swain and Lapkins study established that noticing was enabled

by reformulated writing and that it led to incorporation of

reformulations in the post-treatment task of correcting earlier non-

targetlike usage. However, the post-treatment task took place after

the learners had participated in a stimulated recall session. In this

session, they were again exposed to the differences between their

original output and the reformulation and were able to reflect ontheir thoughts when they first noticed these differences. While the

intent of the stimulated recall was to determine what the learners

had noticed about the feedback, it is possible that additional

learning occurred during these sessions. Since the stimulated recall

session occurred before the post-test, it is not possible to determine

whether the stimulated recall, the noticing, or a combination of the

two led to increased accuracy on certain forms in the post-test.Additionally, the learners dealt with very similar tasks (involving

the same story based on the same prompts) twice. Part of their

improvement could be related to task repetition effects. When

learners perform a similar task more than once within a short time

span, they can be expected to improve simply because increased

Rebecca Adams 353


9/31

task familiarity decreases the task processing difficulty (Skehan,

1998), which can enhance the accuracy of learner output (Bygate,

1996, 2001; Lynch and McLean, 2000, 2001). Thus, there were three

possible sources for the learners incorporation of more targetlike

forms in the second writing of the story: noticing the gap through

reformulated writing, reinforcing the input through stimulated

recall, and decreasing the processing demands through task

repetition. Because of the exploratory nature of Swain and

Lapkins research, teasing apart the effects of different variables

was not the focus of the study, nor did the in-depth case study

approach allow for comparison of different treatment effects. The

purpose of extending this research, therefore, is to partition theeffects of the various components of their study.

While Swain and Lapkin do not justify the use of stimulated

recall before the post-test, other researchers (Gass and Mackey,

2000) have raised concerns of the reactivity of stimulated recall.

They contend that stimulated recall allows learners extra

opportunities to reflect on and process linguistic data they receive

from experimental treatments. Participation in the stimulatedrecall process additionally makes different demands on learners

than the noticing treatment in the study, as the learners were not

observing differences between their IL output and the more

targetlike reformulation, but rather discussing the thoughts they

had when previously noticing those differences. Since stimulated

recall is not only another learning opportunity, but qualitatively

different learning opportunity than the noticing treatment, its

inclusion in the experiment before the post-test likely influencedthe conclusions inferred from the research.

Separating the effects of noticing and stimulated recall may also

clarify the implications for applying reformulations to second

language learning. If comparing learner writing with reformulated

writing leads to second language learning, this treatment could be

investigated in a classroom setting and integrated into classroom

learning. However, if learning is the result of both stimulated recalland noticing, it is harder to see the practical application, as

stimulated recall does not lend itself easily to most classroom

situations. Hence, separating noticing, stimulated recall, and task

repetition in the experimental design can elucidate the implications

of Swain and Lapkins findings to second language pedagogy. If



10/31

learning results from noticing the gap, the study could lend support

to the noticing hypothesis. If it is the result of stimulated recall or

task repetition, Swain and Lapkin (in press) cannot be interpreted

as evidence for the role of noticing in second language learning.

6 Research questions

The current study investigates the effects of task repetition,

noticing facilitated by exposure to reformulated writing, and

stimulated recall by addressing the following research questions:

1. Do learners incorporate noticed TL forms from reformulations

in their output? (adapted from Swain and Lapkin, in press)

2. Does noticing facilitated by exposure to NS reformulations lead

to more incorporation of target-like forms than task repetition

without the noticing treatment?

3. Does participation in stimulated recall sessions in addition

to the noticing treatment impact learners incorporation of

reformulations in their post-treatment writing?

II Methodology

This experiment took place in university Spanish L2 classrooms

and laboratories. The researcher gave instructions and monitored

the learners to make certain that they stayed on task and

communicated in the L2. The teachers did not participate at all in

the data collection, nor did the researcher and the teachers assist

learners in completing the research tasks. The study involved a pre-

test, treatment, post-test design. In this section, the participants and

data collection procedures will be described.

1 Participants

The participants for the study (N = 56) were Spanish L2 language

learners at a North American university. All were either NSs of

English or very highly proficient L2 speakers of English (the four

NNSs had similar incidence of errors as the NSs of their treatment

groups). Five classes of learners participated in the study: four

classes of Intermediate I (third semester class in the undergraduate

Spanish FL curriculum) and one class of Intermediate Intensive

Rebecca Adams 355


11/31

(third and fourth semester Spanish in one semester). The data were

collected three weeks into the semester to ensure that the

instruction in the Intermediate Intensive course had not

progressed beyond the Intermediate I classes. Treatment groups

consisted of learners from each of the five classes in order to

ensure an equal distribution of learners from Intermediate I andIntermediate Intensive in all treatment groups. A description of the

participants can be found in Table 1.

2 Tasks

The study follows a pre-test/treatment/post-test design, using an

interactive task, a jigsaw task (adopted from Swain and Lapkin, in

press), as both the pre- and post-test. The task consisted of asequence of eight pictures that together formed a story (see

Appendix A). For the pre-test, learners were each given four

pictures and were required to describe their pictures to each other

in order to jointly reconstruct the story. They were then instructed

to write out their story. While the learners were working on the

task, they were required to speak only Spanish. For the post-test,

learners were individually given the complete set of pictures andinstructed to write out the story. This use of the task as a pre- and

post-task is modified from that of Swain and Lapkin in two ways.

First, the learners in Swain and Lapkins study watched a short (5

minute) video-taped lesson on reflexive verbs. Part of the video

showed two students engaged in a jigsaw task. Since this study, like


Table 1 Learner characteristics

Factor Learner characteristics

Age 1822

Gender Male 24

Female 32

Classes 1 (Intensive) 10

2 15*

3 14

4 12

5 5

Note:

*Learners performed tasks in pairs. Odd numbers of subjects indicates that oneof the pair did not take the post-test.


12/31

Swain and Lapkin, did not focus solely on the use of reflexive verbs

and since these students were accustomed to doing tasks similar

to the research task, the video was not considered necessary.

Secondly, learners in Swain and Lapkins study were given theiroriginal story without correction marks and asked to correct the

errors for the post-test. Because the intention of this study was to

determine the effects of the different treatments on the learners

IL system, it was determined that rewriting the story from the

pictures would induce a more valid across group comparison. Pilot-

testing indicated that this use of the tasks was appropriate for this

research.

3 Data collection

Five intermediate Spanish classes were involved in the study. The

first stage of the study was carried out in the learners regular

classes. Learners were divided into pairs by their teachers and one

copy of the picture story was given to each pair of learners. Each

learner received one-half of the pictures that made up the story;

their partner received the other half of the pictures. Participants

were instructed to describe their pictures to each other to

reconstruct the story. They were instructed not to use dictionaries

or pose questions to the researcher or the teacher. The interactions

were audio-recorded.

After reconstructing the story, the learners were allowed to view

all the pictures to ensure comprehension of the story. Each dyad

was then instructed to write out the story collaboratively. Theirdiscussion during the collaborative writing was also audio-

recorded. During the classroom phase of the study, learners were

required to speak only Spanish.

The stories produced by the learners were given to either a NS

or a near-NS of Spanish for reformulation. They were instructed

to preserve the original meaning throughout and the original

structure where possible, but to make the story nativelike. The

reformulators were specifically told to change both vocabulary and

grammar when the original did not reflect NS usage. The original

and reformulated stories were then typed so that neither contained

correction marks.

The treatment phase of the study was conducted outside of class.

Rebecca Adams 357


13/31

There were three treatment groups in the study: Noticing, Noticing

+ SR, and Control. As explained previously, learners from each of

the five classes were randomly assigned to the different groups in

order to minimize possible effects from class membership (class

membership was also included in the statistical models to ensure

that it did not influence the findings). The Control group (N = 20)

did not receive any treatment; they completed only the pre-test

and the post-test and received no further input on the study

material and nor feedback on their story. This group was included

in the study to estimate the improvement based on task repetition.

The Noticing group (N = 18) met with the researcher outside of

class in a laboratory setting. Each dyad met individually with theresearcher. They were given a copy of their original story and of

the reformulated version of the story and were instructed to

compare the two versions of the story and find all the differences

they could, discussing together why they believed the changes had

been made. They were asked to verbalize their ideas about the

differences between their stories and the reformulated stories in

order to give evidence to the researcher of what they had noticed.For the sake of this study, noticing was operationalized as verbally

stated awareness of differences between interlanguage and target

output; Swain and Lapkin (in press) operationalized noticing in a

similar manner. This type of noticing is commonly referred to as

noticing the gap, and was the only type of noticing experimentally

isolated in this study. Other noticing may have occurred under all

experimental conditions; for example, in writing the task, learners

may have noticed that they did not know certain key lexical items.Noticing sessions were conducted in Spanish and were audio-

recorded. The protocol for this session closely follows that used by

Swain and Lapkin (in press). The intent of this procedure is to

encourage learners to notice surface level differences between

their output and targetlike output, following Schmidts (2001)

definition of noticing. This group was included in the study to

isolate the effects of noticing on improvement.The final group, the Noticing + SR group (N = 18), also was

allowed to compare their original story with the reformulated

version, following the same instructions as the Noticing group.

Immediately following the noticing session, the participants in this

group participated in a stimulated recall session with the



14/31

researcher. Using the recording of their noticing session as a

stimulus, the learners were asked to recall their thoughts at the

time they made the comparisons. Learners were allowed to stop

the tape whenever they wanted to comment on their thoughtprocesses; the researcher stopped the tape for commentary after

each discussion of a change and after any unclarified reaction to

the reformulations such as laughter or other non-language

verbalizations. The stimulated recall sessions were conducted in

English and were audio-recorded. This group was included in order

to determine the effect of SR and noticing as opposed to noticing

alone.

The final phase of the study was conducted in class a week afterthe initial classroom session. Each learner was given a copy of the

entire picture sequence from the original task and instructed to

write out the story again on their own. It should be noted that this

is not an exact task repetition, as the learners performed the task

co-operatively for the pre-test and individually for the post-test.

However, while the task conditions changed, the task form and

objective remained the same. This was considered likely to lead toincreased accuracy in the post-test, similar to that found in more

orthodox studies of task repetition such as Bygate (1996, 2001).

Following the post-task, the learners filled out an exit

questionnaire, which asked them to indicate whether they had

looked up any unknown forms in dictionaries or grammar texts,

and whether they had asked their teacher or other native speakers

how to express any of the ideas they had struggled with. The

timeline for data collection is explained in Table 2.

4 Analysis and coding

The changes the reformulators made on the pre-treatment texts

produced by participants from all the groups were tallied. These

were analysed to determine the number and type of errors the

learners made. Reformulations were coded as directed to lexicon

(vocabulary) or grammar; grammatical errors were further coded

as errors of verbal morphology, preposition use, gender/agreement,

or other. Spelling errors were checked against the tapes of the

interactions from writing the story. If the learners used the correct

word orally but spelled it incorrectly (or if they used a word that

Rebecca Adams 359


15/31

was plainly recognizable as the target word and not confused with

another Spanish word), the spelling error was counted as an

orthographic error and not included for further analysis. If the

learners verbally used an incorrect word that was consistent with

the spelling, it was counted as a vocabulary error. Thereformulations all were directed at non-targetlike forms. Equally

grammatical alternatives, for example, were never included. The

texts produced by control group pairs were also reformulated.

Although the control group never saw the reformulations, they

were treated as equivalent for the sake of systematic analysis. The

reformulators were not informed which dyads were in each of the

groups. In total, there were 746 reformulations. Of these,

approximately half (N = 381) were directed at various grammaticalstructures and half (N = 365) at vocabulary. The proportions of

reformulations in the data are displayed in Figure 1. The mean

number of errors per dyad was 13.3, with a range of 620.

Errors were then traced to the post-test. If a learner used a form

in the post-test that had been reformulated from the pre-test, it

was coded as either more or less targetlike (forms that remained

unchanged were coded as less targetlike). If the learner rephrasedthe story in order to avoid a problematic form, the form was coded

as not attempted. For the sake of this analysis, only non-targetlike

forms from the first text were considered. Learner texts typically

included some new non-targetlike forms these were not factored

into the analysis for any of the groups. The total number of forms


Table 2 Data collection schedule

Day 1 23 46 8

Activities Initial in-class Reformulation: Laboratory data Final in-class

data collection: The stories are collection: data collection:Learners reformulated by Learners Learners

complete task highly proficient participate in individually

and write the speakers of noticing session write out the

story, all in Spanish in Spanish (10 picture story in

Spanish minutes) and Spanish

(20 minutes) stimulated recall (20 minutes)

sessions in

English (15

minutes) are

held


16/31

that individual learners attempted (both more and less targetlike)

was 445, with a mean of 7.95 per student and a range of 314. The

distribution of reformulations in the post-tests is displayed in

Figure 2. Grammar and vocabulary errors were fairly equally

distributed among the more and less targetlike forms.An independent coder coded 10% of the data, and 95%

intercoder reliability with the researchers coding was found. The

proportion of more-targetlike forms to attempted forms was

calculated for each learner. The scores were categorized into

treatment groups (three levels) and into classes (five levels). Class

membership was included to determine whether learners from

Rebecca Adams 361

Figure 1 Total reformulations

Figure 2 Incorporation of reformulations in the post-test


17/31

different classes would perform differently under the different

experimental conditions. These data were submitted to a two-way

ANOVA.

The forms that prompted reformulation as well as the

reformulations themselves were the topic of the noticing session.

As mentioned previously, in these sessions, learners were instructed

to discuss the differences they found between their original story

and the reformulation and to try to determine why the targeted

forms were reformulated. These discussions constituted evidence

of noticing. While it is impossible to determine that undiscussed

forms were not noticed (Truscott, 1998), reported noticing indicates

that they likely were. The forms that learners from the Noticinggroup and the Noticing + SR group discussed were traced through

to the post-test. The proportion of reported noticed forms that

were used in a more targetlike manner in the post-test to reported

noticed forms overall was calculated for each individual in the

groups that participated in noticing. These data were also

submitted to a two-way ANOVA.

Learners in the Noticing + SR group participated in a stimulated

recall about the noticing in addition to the noticing session. The

recording of the noticing session served as a stimulus for these

sessions. Learners were asked to recall their thoughts when

comparing their own output with the reformulations. These

sessions were transcribed and analysed. A full discussion of the

discussions that arose from the stimulated recall is beyond the

scope of this paper, as the focus of the research is impact of the

stimulated recall on subsequent output. The stimulated recallsindicated that these learners, like those in Swain and Lapkins

study, actively sought to find and understand differences between

their own output and the reformulations.

The coding system for this research is illustrated in Excerpt 1

below.

Excerpt 1:

Original: *Ellaprepara por la escuela.

She gets ready for school

Reformulation: Ellasepreparapara la escuela.

She gets herselfready for school



18/31

There are two errors in the original: the reflexive clitic for the verb

prepararse to get ready is omitted, and an incorrect preposition

por for is used. The first error is an example of one relating to

verbal morphology (grammar) and the second as a prepositionerror (also grammar). In S1s second version of the story, she

attempts this form as illustrated by Excerpt 5.

Excerpt 5

Rosa se levanta y empieza a prepararse para ir a la escuela.

Rosa gets up and begins to get herselfready to go to school

Both forms are attempted here, and both are used in a moretargetlike manner. These forms had been discussed in the noticing

session and thus were coded as noticed reformulations. They were

also discussed in the stimulated recall. Excerpt 6 is part of the

transcript from the stimulated recall discussion of these forms.

Excerpt 6

S1: I didnt know that prepara shouldve been reflexive there.

S2: Yeah, me neither.S1: And also we didnt know the difference like whether we should use por

or para in that case.

R: Did this did the change make sense to you? Or was it confusing?

S1: It doesnt make sense to me. I dont know the difference.

S2: Between por and para.

S1: I dont get it.

S2: But the same makes sense for the preparar for me.

S1: Right.

The first form, prepararse, was related to previously learned

knowledge. The learners recognized the change and remembered

the rule the form was based on. The second form,para, was used

in a way that was confusing to the learners. They indicated that

this use represents new learning from input in the reformulations,

for which they could not rely on their current IL system. Note that

in this excerpt, as in all of the stimulated recall interviews, the

researcher did not supply any rule or explanation of the structures

discussed.

All of the forms that were reported as noticed in the noticing

sessions were discussed in the stimulated recall sessions. The

stimulated recall sessions did, however, make it clear that the

Rebecca Adams 363


19/31

learners noticed differences between their own and the

reformulated output, that they used a variety of strategies to

process the feedback, and that the stimulated recall sessions

themselves qualitatively affected the learners acquisition of

targetlike forms from reformulated writing.

III Results

The results of the analyses are presented in the order of the

research questions stated in the first section of this article.

1 Noticing and learningThe first research question was as follows: Do learners incorporate

noticed TL forms from reformulations in their output? In order to

answer this question, the results for the two groups that

participated in noticing sessions were grouped together, and the

percentage of noticed forms that were incorporated in the post-

test output in a more targetlike manner was calculated. When

learners in these groups attempted to use a reformulation that theyhad reported noticing in the post-test, they used it in a more

targetlike manner around 61% of the time (standard deviation is

18%). The mean number of attempted reformulations was 8.7

forms, and the mean number of more targetlike reformulations was

5.3. Figure 3 displays the more and less targetlike use of grammar

and vocabulary in the post-test.


Figure 3 More and less targetlike usage on the post-test


20/31

The percentages of incorporated grammatical forms and

vocabulary are roughly equivalent, indicating that grammatical and

vocabulary reformulations were equally likely to be incorporated

in the post-test. The relatively large standard deviation, however,

indicates that there is a great deal of variation among the learners

in these groups.

2 Differences among groups

The second and third research questions dealt with the differences

among the three treatment groups: Control, Noticing and Noticing

+ SR. It is here that the current study departs from Swain and

Lapkins study, as their one dyad design did not allow them to

separate out the effects of the different treatments. The point of

directly comparing the three groups is to estimate how much of

the incorporation of targetlike forms was related to task repetition,

how much to noticing, and how much to the stimulated recall. The

measurement of these effects is cumulative in the design. The

Control groups scores represent the effects of task repetition, the

Noticing groups scores represent the cumulative effects of taskrepetition and noticing, and the Noticing + SR groups scores

represent the cumulative effects of task repetition, noticing, and

stimulated recall. By directly comparing the three groups, it is

possible to partial out the impact of each of these factors.

The proportion of reformulations that were incorporated in a

more targetlike form to the total number of reformulations was

calculated for each learner. Descriptive statistics for these values

are displayed in Table 3.

Residual analysis indicated that there was unequal variance

among the groups. Accordingly, the data were transformed using a

standard transformation for proportion data ( = 2asiny), as

suggested by Neter et al. (1996). These data were submitted to a

two-factor ANOVA. As discussed above, two ANOVA models

Rebecca Adams 365

Table 3 Incorporation of more TL forms

Group Mean Standard deviation

Control 29.23 23.75

Noticing 50.05 22.94

Noticing + SR 70.97 19.34


21/31

were used. The first (reported here) compared all three groups; the

second (reported below) compared only the Noticing group with

the Noticing + SR group using scores for learning of forms where

learners gave overt indications of noticing. It was found that there

were significant differences among the three groups (F = 2.84, df

= 42, p < 0.05). There were no significant main factor effects for

class membership (F = 1.92, df = 4, p > 0.05), and no significant

interaction between class membership and group

(F = 0.87, df = 6, p > 0.05). There were significant main factor

effects for treatment group (F = 4.99, df = 2, p = 0.01), indicating

that the different treatments significantly affected learners use of

more targetlike forms on the post-test. The different treatmenteffects are illustrated in Figure 4. Post hoc Tukey analysis was

conducted to determine which groups were significantly different.

Both the Noticing group and the Noticing + SR group significantly

outperformed the Control group. While the Noticing + SR group

outperformed the Noticing group, this difference was not

significant at the p < 0.05 level. It did, however, approach

significance. Table 4 displays the contrasts between group means

for the three treatment groups.

Because the Control group did not receive a noticing treatment,

in analyses that included the Control group any reformulated form

was considered a target for reformulation. However, if only the

Noticing and Noticing + SR groups are compared, it is possible to

more closely examine the effects of noticing. For these two groups,

the proportion of more targetlike incorporated reformulations to


Figure 4 Means by treatment group


22/31

reformulations that the learners reported noticing were calculated.

These data were submitted to a two-way ANOVA (F = 4.38,

df = 24, p < 0.05). There was no significant interaction between

class membership and treatment group (F = 1.62, df = 3, p > 0.05);

main factor effects were found for both treatment group (F = 9.58,df = 1, p < 0.01) and for class membership (F = 5.55, df = 3,

p < 0.01). Post hoc Tukey analysis indicated that the Noticing + SR

group significantly outperformed the Noticing group. This indicates

that stimulated recall increased the chance that learners would

incorporate the reformulations into their subsequent output. The

differences between the two groups are illustrated in Figure 5.

Tukey analysis also indicated that members of one class (whether

in the Noticing or the Noticing + SR group) incorporated

significantly fewer reformulations in the post-test. Without further

investigation of this class, the instructional practices, and individual

learner differences, it is difficult to draw inferences from this

finding. However, there was no interaction between group and

class membership; learners from this class, like those from the

other classes, incorporated more reformulations if they

participated in both noticing and stimulated recall.

Rebecca Adams 367

Table 4 Tukey contrasts among groups

Noticing Control

Noticing + SR 14.09 37.19*

Noticing 23.10*

Note:

*p < .05

Figure 5 Incorporation of noticed reformulations on the post-test


23/31

4 Discussion

The first research question addressed the evidence of noticing, and

was adapted from Swain and Lapkins study. Swain and Lapkin (in

press) found that learners incorporated the majority of thereformulations in their subsequent output. The results of the

current study confirm Swain and Lapkins finding that noticing

facilitated by discussion of reformulated writing has an impact on

learners subsequent writing. Learners who participated in the

noticing treatments incorporated more than 60% of the

reformulations in their output. However, there was wide variation

in the proportion of forms incorporated. This implies that noticing

was much more effective in prompting some learners toincorporate more targetlike forms in their output than others. It is

possible that individual learner differences such as motivation

(Drnyei, 1998) or aptitude (Skehan, 1998) regulate the

effectiveness of noticing in facilitating learning.

The finding that 60% of targeted forms were incorporated in a

more targetlike manner overall is lower than the percentage found

by Swain and Lapkin (in press). Both of their learners incorporatedat least 78% of the reformulations in a more targetlike manner.

This discrepancy could stem from several different sources. Swain

and Lapkins learners were French immersion learners, while the

learners in this study were university Spanish learners. Because the

learners in the current study had not learned Spanish in an

immersion situation, but rather were studying in classes that made

use of overt grammatical and vocabulary instruction, they were

possibly less accustomed to learning under implicit conditions.Also, Swain and Lapkins two learners had both received the

noticing treatment and the stimulated recall treatment, while half

of the learners reported here had only received the noticing

treatment. However, when learners from the Noticing group are

removed from the analysis, the mean percentage of more targetlike

incorporation of reformulations increases to only 64%. The

difference in findings could also be due to the larger populationinvolved in this study. The proficiency of one of Swain and Lapkins

two learners was rated as slightly above average by the teacher (4

on a 7-point scale); the other was rated as highly above average

(6/7). This study included a range of learners from several

classrooms, not only average and above average learners.



24/31

The second question dealt with the effects of task repetition. The

comparisons among the groups indicate that each of the factors

represented task repetition, noticing, and stimulated recall

contributed to learning facilitated by reformulated writing. The

Control group, whose only treatment was to repeat the task, used

approximately 30% of the non-targetlike forms from the pre-test

in a more targetlike manner when they attempted to use those

forms again in the post-test. Increased accuracy as a result of task

repetition is predicted by the task-based language learning

literature (Skehan, 1998). The first time the learners participated

in the task, they were likely focused on expressing the meaning.

The second time they wrote the story, they could focus more onthe forms they were using, resulting in more accurate usage. The

increased accuracy of the task repetition group was similar to that

found in other task-based studies, including Bygate (1996, 2001)

and Lynch and McLean (2000, 2001). This interpretation is

supported by the stimulated recall data from this study, in which

learners often indicated that they immediately recognized their

mistake and that they had previously learned the relevant form,but mistakenly had not used it when writing the story. The learners

were better able to avoid these errors when the communicative

burden was diminished. This finding illustrates the importance of

conservative interpretation of treatment effects in studies without

comparison groups, as improved accuracy on post-treatment

measures are partially attributable to factors other than the

treatments.

The final research question dealt with the impact of stimulatedrecall on the findings. The difference between the Noticing + SR

group and the Noticing group on the incorporation of noticed

reformulations indicates that stimulated recall, in addition to

yielding information about the learners mental processing during

the noticing treatment, also acts as a learning experience. This

finding underscores concerns about the reactivity of introspective

research methods (Gass and Mackey, 2000). While such methodsallow researchers to investigate learners conscious processing,

they can also affect the phenomenon under observation. Methods

like stimulated recall that give learners a second opportunity to

reflect on the treatment may reinforce previous learning or give

learners time to process input that they have not previously

Rebecca Adams 369


25/31

processed. If such research is conducted before post-treatment

measures are completed, they can affect the post-test outcomes,

exaggerating the apparent effectiveness of a given treatment.

While part of the improved accuracy on post-tests was

attributable to task repetition, and part to the stimulated recall,

the Noticing group still significantly incorporated reformulations

in the post-treatment output even when the effects of task

repetition are parcelled out. This lends support to the Noticing

Hypothesis (Schmidt and Frota, 1986; Schmidt, 1990, 2001)

indicating that noticing surface differences between IL and NS

output can facilitate learning, at least in the short term. Further

studies could determine whether this learning persists over longerperiods.

Finally, it should be remembered that relatively large variation

was found for all groups standard deviations of greater than 20

were found for each of the group means. This indicates that none

of the three treatments was equally effective for all learners. Most

likely, individual factors beyond the scope of this study mitigated

the effects of each treatment. Indeed, research on implicit learning

has repeatedly indicated that individual factors including

motivation, aptitude, learning orientation, working memory,

grammatical sensitivity and others impact learning under implicit

conditions (see Robinson, 2002, for discussions on these and other

individual differences). However, the size of the groups and the

balanced design mitigated the effects of within-group variation,

equalizing the variation across groups. The equality of variance

allows for making inferences about the treatments themselves. Itshould also be noted that this study did not involve any delayed

post-testing, so it is unknown whether the use of more targetlike

forms in the post-test was indicative of long-term changes in the

learners interlanguage. However, these data overall support the

conclusion that participation in a noticing treatment facilitates

more learning than task repetition alone, and that participation in

noticing and stimulated recall facilitates more learning than

noticing alone.



26/31

5 Conclusion

These findings bring up new questions, some of which have already

been discussed. The role of individual factors that might cause

the variation found among learners within groups could beinvestigated. This would help us understand how different learners

approach and process the negative and positive feedback provided

by reformulations. Further research could also determine whether

the benefits of noticing facilitated by reformulated writing persist

over time, and whether they extend to contexts beyond that of the

task used in this research.

This study supports Swain and Lapkins (in press) claim that

noticing, facilitated by exposure to reformulated writing, can

promote learning of more targetlike forms. The learners in the

current study who participated in noticing sessions incorporated

significantly more reformulated forms into their IL than those who

did not. The results of this study also indicate that the use of

stimulated recall influenced the findings in that the extra exposure

to the reformulations given to learners during the stimulated recall

protocol, as well as the extra time afforded them to process thosedifferences, enhanced the learning from reformulations. These

findings imply that reformulated writing might be an effective tool

for second language pedagogy, and supports the effectiveness of

written output and feedback for noticing and learning forms.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Alison Mackey, Merrill Swain, Lauren Ross-Feldman and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions on

earlier drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank Yi-Young

Kim, Cathy Stafford and Nina Moreno for assistance in data

collection, and Ron Leow, Christina Sanz and the teachers involved

in this study for access to classes for data collection.

IV ReferencesAllwright, R.L., Woodley, M.-P. and Allwright, J.M. 1988: Investigating

reformulation as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic

writing.Applied Linguistics 9: 23656.Ashwell, T. 2000: Patterns of teacher response to learner writing in a

multiple-draft composition classroom: is content feedback followed

Rebecca Adams 371


27/31

by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second LanguageWriting 9: 22757.

Brooks, L. and Swain, M. 2001: Collaborative writing and expert

feedback: how they support second language learning. Toronto:

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University ofToronto.

Bygate, M. 1996: Effects of task repetition: appraising the developinglanguage of learners. In Willis J. and Willis, D., editors, Challenge

and change in language teaching, London: Heinemann, 13646. 2001: Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral

language. In Bygate, M., Skehan P., and Swain, M., editors,Researching pedagogic tasks, New York: Longman, 2348.

Carson, J. 2001: Second Language Writing and second languageacquisition. In Silva, T. and Matsuda, P., editors, On SecondLanguage Writing, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,19199.

Cohen, A. 1983: Reformulating second-language compositions: a potentialsource of input for the learner. Paper presented at the AnnualConvention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages,Toronto. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 866.)25 pp.

Conrad, S.M. and Goldstein, L.M. 1999: ESL learner revision afterteacher-written comments: text, contents, and individuals.Journal ofSecond Language Writing 8: 14779.

De Guerrero, M. and Villamil, O. 2001: Activating the ZPD: Mutual

Scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal84,5168.

Drnyei, Z. 1998: Motivation in foreign and second language learning.Language Teaching 31: 11735.

Doughty, C. 2001. Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In RobinsonP., editor, Cognition and second language instruction, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 20657.

Ellis, N.C. 2001: Memory for language. In Robinson, P., editor, Cognition

and second language instruction, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 3368.

Ellis, R. 1994: Factors in the incidental acquisition of second languagevocabulary from oral input: a review essay. Applied LanguageLearning 5: 132.

Gass, S. 1997:Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S. and Mackey, A. 2000: Stimulated recall methodology in secondlanguage research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hatch, E. 1978: Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In Richards,J., Understanding second and foreign language learning, Rowley,



28/31

MA: Newbury House, 3470.Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. 1992: Collaborative oral/aural revision in

foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language

Writing 1: 25576.

1994: Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacherresponse in L2 composing.Journal of Second Language Writing 3:14163.

1996: Some input on input: two analyses of student response to

expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal 80:287308.

Hyland, F. 1998: The impact of teacher written feedback on individualwriters.Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 25588.

2000: ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students.Language Teaching Research 4: 3354.Izumi, S. and Bigelow, M. 2000: Does output promote noticing and second

language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 34: 23978.Kassen, M.A. 1988: Native and non-NS teacher response to foreign

language learner writing: a study of intermediate level French.Texaspapers in foreign language education 1, pp. 115. (Eric DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 345483.)

Kepner, C.G. 1991: An experiment in the relationship of types of written

feedback to the development of second-language writing skills.Modern Language Journal75: 30513.

Krashen, S.D. 1985: The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London:Longman.

Lapkin, S. and Swain, M. 2001: Focus on form through collaborativedialogue: exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain,M., Researching pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching,and testing, London: Longman, 99118.

Leeman, J. 2003: Records and second language development. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 25: 3763.Leow, R. 1997: Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior.

Language Learning 47: 467505.Long, M. 1996: The role of the linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. In Ritchie, W.C. and Bhatia, T.K., Handbook of languageacquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition. New York:Academic Press, 41368.

Lynch, T. and MacLean, J. 2000: Exploring the benefits of task repetition

and recycling for classroom language learning. Language TeachingResearch 4: 22150.

2001. A case of exercising: effect of immediate task repetition onlearners performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M.,

editors, Researching pedagogic tasks, New York: Longman, 14162.Mackey, A. 2000: Feedback, noticing and second language development:

Rebecca Adams 373


29/31

an empirical study of L2 classroom interaction. Paper presented atthe British Association for Applied Linguistics, October 2000,Cambridge, UK.

Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C. and Winke, P. 2002a: Modified output

and working memory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Association of Applied Linguists (April 610), Salt LakeCity, UT.

Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. and Tatsumi, T. 2002b: Individual

differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback,and L2 development. In Robinson, P. and Skehan, P., Individualdifferences in L2 Learning, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181210.

McLeod, B. and McLaughlin, B. 1986: Restructuring or automaticity?

Reading in a second language. Language Learning 36: 10923.Mendoca, C.O. and Johnson, K.E. 1994:Peer review negotiations: revisionactivities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28: 74569.

Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J. and Wasserman, W. 1996:Applied linear statistical models. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P.H. and Spada, N. 2001: Recasts as feedbackto language learners. Language Learning 51: 71851.

Paulus, T.M. 1999: The effect of peer and teacher feedback on learnerwriting.Journal of Second Language Writing 8: 26589.

Philp, J. 2003: Constraints on noticing the gap. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 25: 99126.

Pica, T. 1994: Review article: Research on negotiation: what does itreveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and

outcomes? Language Learning 44: 493527. 1997: Second language research and research relationships: a North

American view. Language Teaching Research 1: 4872.Qi, D.S. and Lapkin, S. 2001: Exploring the role of noticing in a three-

stage second language writing task. Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 10: 277303.Reid, J.M. 1982: The process of composition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall.Robinson, P. 1995: Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis.

Language Learning 45: 283331.Robinson, P., editor, 2002:Individual differences and instructed language

learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2003: Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C. and Long,

M.H., editors, Handbook of second language acquisition, Oxford:Blackwell. In press.

Schmidt, R. 1990: The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics 11: 12958.

2001: Attention. In Robinson, P., Cognition and second languageinstruction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 332.



30/31

Rebecca Adams 375

Schmidt, R. and Frota, S.N. 1986: Developing basic conversational abilityin a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese.In Day, R., Talking to learn: conversation in SLA, Rowley, MA:Newbury House, 237326.

Shi, L. 1998: Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL studentscompositions.Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 319345.

Skehan, P. 1998: A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. 1985: Communicative competence: some roles of comprehen-sible input and comprehensive output in its development. In Gass,S. and Madden, C.,Input in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley,MA: Newbury House, 235253.

1993: The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing arentenough. Canadian Modern Language Review 50: 15864. 1995: Three functions of output in second language learning. In

Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B., Principles and practice in alliedlinguistics: studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 12544.

1998: Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C.and Williams,J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second languageacquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6481.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1998: Interaction and second language learning:two adolescent French immersion learners working together.Modern Language Journal80: 32037.

2003: Talking it through: two French immersion learners responseto reformulated writing.International Review of Applied Linguistics.

(Special Issue on The role of interaction in instructed languagelearning.) In press.

Storch, N. 2001: How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary learners

composing in pairs.Language Teaching Research

5: 2953.Tomlin, R. and Villa, V. 1994: Attention in cognitive science and secondlanguage acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16:183203.

Truscott, J. 1998: Noticing in second language acquisition: a criticalreview. Second Language Research 14: 10335.

Zhang, S. 1995: Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback inthe ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4:20922.


31/31


Appendix A: Pictures used in jigsaw task

Reproduced from Swain and Lapkin (in press)

Documents

Language Teaching Research-2003-Adams-347-76.pdf