information manufacturing corporation
TRANSCRIPT
Applied Linguistics 27/3: 405–430 � Oxford University Press 2006
doi:10.1093/applin/ami051
Feedback, Noticing and InstructedSecond Language Learning
ALISON MACKEY
Georgetown University
Second language acquisition researchers have claimed that feedback provided
during conversational interaction facilitates second language (L2) acquisition.
A number of experimental studies have supported this claim, connecting
interactional feedback with L2 development. Researchers have suggested that
interactional feedback is associated with L2 learning because it prompts learners
to notice L2 forms. This study explores the relationships between feedback,
instructed ESL learners’ noticing of L2 form during classroom interactions and
their subsequent L2 development. Interactional feedback was provided to
learners in response to their production problems with questions, plurals, and
past tense forms. Learners’ noticing was assessed through on-line learning
journals, introspective comments while viewing classroom videotapes, and
questionnaire responses. Through a controlled pre-test, post-test design,
analyses of noticing and learning were carried out for each learner. The results
point to an interesting, complex and positive relationship between interactional
feedback in the classroom, the learners’ reports about noticing and their learning
of L2 question forms.
INTRODUCTION
Long’s interaction hypothesis (Long 1983, 1996, 2006) proposes that second
language learning is facilitated through interactional processes because of the
role of interaction in connecting ‘input, internal learner capacities, particularly
selective attention, and output in productive ways’ (Long 1996: 451–2).
Helpful interactional processes include the negotiation of meaning and the
provision of recasts, both of which can supply corrective feedback letting
learners know that their utterances were problematic. A further interactional
process that can result from feedback is known as modified output, and has
also been claimed by Swain (1995, 1998, 2005) to be helpful in language
learning. These interactional processes are illustrated in Examples (1a) and (1b)
below:
(1a) Negotiation (from Mackey and Philp 1998: 339)
1 NNS: Here and then the left.
2 NS: Sorry? Clarification request
3 NNS: Ah here and one ah where one ah one of them on the left. Modified output
4 NS: Yeah one’s behind the table and then the other’s on the left of the table.
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
(1b) Recast (from Mackey et al. 2003: 37)
1 NNS: And in the er kitchen er cupboard no on shef.
2 NS: On the shelf. I have it on the shelf. Recast
3 NNS: In the shelf, yes OK. Modified output
In Example (1a), negotiation for meaning in the form of a clarification
request was made by the native speaker in line 2 in response to the learner’s
incomprehensible utterance in line 1. Subsequently, the non-native speaker
modified the original utterance by rephrasing it to get the intended meaning
across to the native speaker. From looking at the response by the native
speaker in line 4, the learner’s modified output seemed to have been
comprehended better than the original output. In Example (1b), in line 2,
the native speaker provides a recast to the learner’s utterance in line 1,
providing both the missing article and the correct pronunciation of ‘shelf’.
Recasts are responses to non-targetlike utterances that provide a targetlike
way of expressing the original meaning. Recasts often signal to learners that
their utterance was non-targetlike. In this case, the juxtaposition of ‘shef’ to
‘shelf’ may have let the non-native speaker know that although the
utterance was comprehensible, it was non-targetlike. The recast provided the
learner with the correct pronunciation of the target and the correct article.
Recasts also provide learners with targetlike models, providing positive
evidence (information about which forms are grammatical in the target
language) for learners. After the recast, the learner reformulates the original
‘shef’ from line 1 to the more targetlike lexical form (‘shelf’) in line 3 and
also includes the correct article, although the preposition ‘on’ moves to the
non-targetlike form ‘in.’
The question of whether there is a direct relationship between
interactional feedback and L2 development has been the focus of recent
interaction research, with generally positive results (e.g. Ellis et al. 1994;
Loschky 1994; Long et al. 1998; Mackey and Philp 1998; Ellis and He 1999;
Mackey 1999; Silver 2000; Mackey and Oliver 2002; Iwashita 2003; Leeman
2003; Philp 2003; Ishida 2004; Mackey and Silver 2005; McDonough 2005;
Mackey in press). The majority of these studies have reported learning
outcomes for interaction. A few studies have suggested that certain types of
interactional feedback are more effective than others at promoting modified
output by learners (e.g. Pica et al. 1989; Lyster and Ranta 1997; Lyster 1998a,
1998b), although it should be noted that most of these studies have explored
only the immediate effects of interactional feedback, and have not focused on
longer-term learning. Lyster and Ranta (1997), for example, investigated the
relationship between teacher feedback and learner uptake (which they
defined as a learner utterance immediately following teacher feedback and
constituting a reaction to that feedback) in four content-based French
immersion classrooms. They suggested that among the feedback types they
studied, recasts were the most frequently used but led to the least uptake.
Other studies conducted in both classrooms and labs have found a positive
406 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
relationship between various types of feedback and L2 production and
learning (e.g. Oliver 2000; Ellis et al. 2001a, 2001b; Mackey et al. 2003).
Ellis et al. (2001a, 2001b), for example, used a slightly different definition of
uptake than that used in Lyster and Ranta (1997)—one in which the learner
utterance was optional and could occur not only after feedback, but also after
any interlocutor utterance that provided information about a linguistic
feature—to investigate focus on form episodes during communicative ESL
classes in a private language school in New Zealand. They reported high
levels of uptake (78.6 per cent). Studies using a pre-test, post-test design
have also reported positive effects for interactional feedback on learning (e.g.
Mackey 1999; Silver 2000; Mackey and Oliver 2002; Iwashita 2003; Leeman
2003; Philp 2003; Ishida 2004; Mackey and Silver 2005; McDonough 2005).
Mackey and Philp (1998), for example, examined the effect of recasts on
the development of question forms. In that study, adult ESL learners at
intermediate and advanced levels completed three information gap tasks
with a NS partner. Learners in the experimental group received recasts in
response to any non-targetlike utterances they produced. Learners in the
control group participated in the same tasks but did not receive feedback on
their errors. Analyses of pre-test, post-test differences indicated that advanced
learners who received recasts produced more advanced question forms in the
post-tests than learners in the control group.
Within classroom research on feedback there are also differences; for
example, in some classrooms the primary focus is on form, while others are
more meaning-focused. With many classes focusing on meaning or form
depending on the context, classroom studies have also differed in the degree
to which the researcher has influenced the class activities and discourse,
ranging from what is argued to be naturalistic instructional settings to more
quasi-experimental research.
Interactional feedback and classroom L2 instruction
Various sorts of interactions in second language classrooms are promoted
by form-focused instruction. Focus on form has been defined by Long (1998)
as interactional moves directed at raising learner awareness of forms,
including ‘briefly drawing students’ attention to linguistic elements (words,
collocations, grammatical structures, pragmatic patterns, and so on), in
context, as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on
meaning, or communication’ (Long 1998: 40). Based on Long’s definition of
focus on form, the process is crucially incidental; feedback provided during
focus on form occurs in response to specific learner errors or concerns in
meaning-focused communication. When triggered by learners’ comprehension
and production problems, interactional feedback such as recasts and negotia-
tion fall under Long’s definition of focus on form (Long and Robinson 1998).
Ellis (2001) also provides a definition of form-focused instruction, which,
while similar to Long’s focus on form, is more inclusive, incorporating both
ALISON MACKEY 407
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
planned and unplanned discussion of form. Ellis describes form-focused
instruction as ‘any planned or incidental instructional activity that
is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic form’
(Ellis 2001: 1–2) and notes that incidental focus on form has received
relatively little research attention. Ellis et al. (2001a) have called for
triangulation of research methods, including experimental, introspective, and
descriptive approaches, to examine cognitive processes and social factors that
contribute to learning outcomes through form-focused instruction. Following
this call, the goals of the present study are to examine the role of
interactional feedback in the cognitive process of noticing L2 form in L2
classroom settings, and to investigate any relationship between noticing and
learning.
Noticing
One of the important foci of current SLA research is the examination of
cognitive processes in second language learning (Schmidt and Frota 1986;
Alanen 1995; Ellis 1996; Ellis and Sinclair 1996; Ellis and Schmidt 1997;
Grabe and Stoller 1997; Leow 1997; Miyake and Friedman 1998; Rosa and
O’Neill 1999; Mackey 2002; Swain and Lapkin 2002). Attention and
awareness in particular have been identified as two cognitive processes that
mediate input and L2 development through interaction (e.g. Gass and
Varonis 1994; Robinson 1995, 2001, 2003; Long 1996; Gass 1997, Mackey
et al. 2000; Philp 2003). Long (1996), for example, claims that selective
attention (along with the learner’s developing L2 processing capacity)
mediates the L2 acquisition process. Negotiated interaction is claimed to be
particularly useful in this regard, as the interactional feedback can help direct
the learner’s attention towards a mismatch between the target input and the
learner’s own interlanguage form (i.e. ‘noticing the gap,’ Schmidt and Frota
1986), while at the same time providing learners with opportunities to
produce modified output (Swain 1995, 1998, 2005). As Gass and Varonis
(1994) explain, negotiated interaction can ‘crucially focus the learner’s
attention on the parts of the discourse that are problematic, either from a
productive or a receptive point of view. Attention allows learners to notice a
gap between what they produce/know and what is produced by the speakers
of the L2. The perception of a gap or mismatch may lead to grammar
restructuring’ (Gass and Varonis 1994: 299). Gass and Mackey (in press) note
that ‘the interaction itself may also direct learners’ attention to something
new, such as a new lexical item or grammatical construction, thus promoting
the development of the L2.’
Clearly, these claims about attention and noticing are important for SLA.
Schmidt (1995, 2001) and Robinson (1995, 2001, 2003) argue that learners
must consciously notice input in order for it to become intake. This claim is
generally referred to as the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt 1990, 1993, 1995),
which has been explored in a number of empirical studies (e.g. Alanen 1995;
408 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
Leow 1997; Rosa and O’Neill 1999; Leow 2000; Izumi 2002; Leow 2002;
Swain and Lapkin 2002; Adams 2003; Gass et al. 2003). In the context of
interaction research, empirical investigations into the relationship between
noticing and learning are clearly warranted given the fact that the interaction
hypothesis claims that regular interaction works through learner-internal
factors, such as noticing (Long 1996).
In addition to the fact that few studies have directly explored the
relationship between noticing and L2 learning, concerns have also been
raised in the SLA literature as to how noticing data should be collected and
analyzed (see for example, Truscott 1998; Schmidt 2001). While some
researchers have used diaries, questionnaires, and uptake sheets to provide
introspective data on learners’ noticing and learning processes (Schmidt and
Frota 1986; Slimani 1989; Warden et al. 1995), Tomlin and Villa (1994) point
out that reports of noticing may only coarsely connect instances of noticing
to the phenomena that prompted them. Cognitive processing of input,
according to Tomlin and Villa (1994: 185), ‘takes place in relatively brief
spans of time, seconds or even parts of seconds’. In contrast, uptake sheets
and questionnaires might span an hour, a day, or several days. Verbal reports
such as think-aloud protocols and stimulated recall protocols have been used
to record reports of noticing in a finer temporal context (e.g. Leow 1997;
Mackey et al. 2000; Swain and Lapkin 2002; Adams 2003). However, these,
too, have been criticized because verbal reports, particularly online reports
such as think-aloud protocols, may require learners to report their mental
processes under temporal and communicative pressure, potentially leading
to underreporting. As with all self-report data, it may be best to triangulate
methods of collecting noticing data to obtain as full a picture as possible of
learners’ noticing (Mackey and Gass 2006).
The coding of noticing data also poses challenges for SLA researchers.
Coarsely grained coding systems (such as Swain and Lapkin’s (1995)
exploration of language-related episodes as occasions when learners noticed
a gap in their interlanguage and made an attempt to express their meaning
more clearly) are important in understanding output as learning, but may
not distinguish among some of the processes important to the understanding
of cognition in SLA. However, more finely grained coding systems, such as
those that distinguish between various levels of awareness (e.g. awareness ‘at
the level of noticing’, awareness ‘at the level of understanding’, e.g. Schmidt
1995, 2001; Leow 1997, 1998), may be more susceptible to problems with
sparse data. Furthermore, as various researchers have pointed out, a lack of
evidence of noticing or attention is not equivalent to proof that attention
or noticing is not present; in other words, absence of evidence is not the
same thing as evidence of absence. Likewise, a learner report that indicates
awareness at the level of noticing but not understanding does not necessarily
show that understanding did not play a role. Thus, while coarsely grained
coding may fail to distinguish among processes, more finely grained coding
systems require more interpretation on the researcher’s part.
ALISON MACKEY 409
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
In summary, it has been found that interactional feedback is associated
with L2 learning, with claim being that the relationship is mediated by
learner noticing of L2 form. Methodological challenges notwithstanding,
this claim is worthy of investigation. The goal of the current study is
to empirically investigate the relationship between learners’ noticing in the
L2 classroom and their L2 learning outcomes. The two specific research
questions addressed in this study were:
1 Does interactional feedback promote noticing of L2 form in an L2
classroom context?
2 Is there a relationship between learners’ reports of noticing L2 forms
and their L2 learning outcomes?
Multiple methods of data collection were utilized for the collection of both
performance and introspective data, and both quantitative and qualitative
analyses were employed.
METHODS
Learner participants
The 28 ESL learners who took part in the study were enrolled in a
university-level intensive English program. Based on their scores on the
internal language program proficiency test, the learners were assessed as
being at the high-intermediate level. The learners were randomly distributed
into two intact speaking and listening elective classes by the language
program administrators. Approximately half of the learners in the study
reported taking the TOEFL exam. Their scores ranged from 450 to 565, with
a mean score of 529.5. The ages of the learners ranged from 18 to 41, with
an average age of 24.2. The majority of the learners had recently arrived in
the U.S. Their length of residence ranged from 2 months to 3 years with an
average time of 7.2 months. All the learners reported previous English
instruction. Their average length of previous study was 6.1 years, with a
range from 1 to 11 years. The learners came from various L1 backgrounds,
including Asian, Romance, and Germanic. Thus, the class makeup was
typical of many university-level intensive English programs in the U.S.
Teacher participants
The teachers of the two classes were two experienced ESL instructors from
the university’s ESL program. These two teachers were selected after
discussions and observations of a range of teachers within the program. The
goal was to identify teachers who regularly provided interactional feedback of
the sorts under investigation during their teaching practice. For each teacher,
four of their regular class sessions were observed, two prior to and two
following the experiment in order to examine their typical interactional
feedback practices and identify patterns, as well as any possible carry-over
410 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
from the experiment (none was observed). Prior to the onset of the
experiment, both teachers read a set of notes and a research paper describing
task-based materials that provide opportunities for interactional feedback.
Then, the classroom activities were developed in collaborative sessions
between the researcher and the teachers. The researcher met with each
teacher individually for two two-hour training sessions. These sessions were
carried out in a laboratory setting and did not involve any of the learners
in the study reported here. A different set of learners were present for the
training activities so that the teachers could practice their responses. The
experimental group teacher participated in role-play sessions where the focus
was: (a) the provision of feedback; (b) ensuring that the experimental
activities elicited production involving the targeted linguistic forms, while
also providing opportunities for interactional feedback to be provided; and
(c) role-play activities with students. The control group teacher participated
in similar training sessions with the researcher where the focus was: (a) the
provision of input and output opportunities for the experimental forms
through activities where opportunities for interactional feedback were
unlikely to arise; (b) discussion and review of transcripts from previous
classes; and (c) role-play activities with students. Both teachers were then
observed in class for two sessions to ascertain that the training was effective.
Curriculum and classes
The course of study for all learners in the language program consisted of
20 hours of instruction each week, with a daily integrated skills class and two
content-based elective classes. The integrated skills class met for two hours
and the elective classes met for 50 minutes each day. The objectives for the
elective classes were based on oral communication, including the under-
standing of topic development, main ideas, supporting points, and making
use of functional expressions for conversation in social settings and
discussions. One of the two classes was randomly assigned as a control
group, and the other as an experimental group.
Measures of development
The targeted forms were questions, plurals, and the past tense. As mentioned
earlier, some researchers have argued that focus on form can be divided into
‘planned’ and ‘incidental’ on the basis of the presence of pre-selected
linguistic forms (Ellis 2001). Ellis points out that planned focus on form
involving pre-selected linguistic items lends itself well to empirical, post-test
investigations (such as the current study). Since learning outcomes and
noticing were crucial, linguistic forms were pre-selected and planned through
‘seeding’ the task (Samuda 2001); in other words, the tasks were carefully
designed to promote the use of these forms.
ALISON MACKEY 411
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
Procedure
Experimental group
For three consecutive 50-minute class periods (over three days), the
experimental group carried out an activity jointly designed by the classroom
teachers and the researcher to be both pedagogically and experimentally
useful. This game show activity had pedagogical value, was designed as part
of the themes of the class (American TV shows, in particular ‘Friends,’ ‘South
Park,’ ‘Futurama,’ and ‘The Simpsons’) and based on the interests of the
learners. The game show activity also provided learners with production
opportunities, as well as opportunities to demonstrate content knowledge
about the TV shows that they had been studying. It provided opportunities
for the experimental learners to receive interactional feedback on
problematic L2 forms, including the grammatical forms of interest in
the current study. So, it allowed them to hear and receive feedback on their
production of the grammatical forms of interest for the current study.
The class was divided into three teams of 4–5 members, with each one of
the three teams taking the ‘hot spot’ at the front of the class, facing their
classmates, each day. The teacher (who acted as the game show host for two
days) and the researcher (who acted as a ‘guest host’ for one day) stood at
the back of the class asking the questions focusing on the four TV programs
(e.g. ‘Who owned the monkey on the television show ‘‘Friends’’ ?’). The
‘hot spot’ team answered the quiz questions orally, some individually and
some after conferencing with teammates. During the final ten minutes of the
game show, the learners were provided with answers, to which they had to
supply the questions in the style popularized by the game show ‘Jeopardy’
(where contestants are provided with answers to trivia questions, to which
they must supply the questions, e.g. ‘The answer is Bart Simpson. What is
the question?’ ‘The question is, ‘‘Who is Homer’s son?’’ ’). The other two
teams sat at either sides of the classroom answering the quiz questions on
paper. Each team received an overall daily score, and the class’s attention
was often drawn to this score, so as to maintain all three teams’ interest and
involvement in the game show. The teams were in competition with each
other to win the game and thus demonstrate their grasp of the content and
language of the popular TV shows they had been watching.
As part of the game show activity, learners received interactional
feedback from the teacher and the researcher where feedback was
appropriate. As noted earlier, both were experienced ESL teachers and
were present during all three class periods. They provided feedback,
including negotiation and recasts, on the target linguistic forms and other
forms that led to miscommunications during the interaction. Most of the
feedback was provided by the host to the team orally answering the
questions; however, the host occasionally provided feedback to the other
teams during their discussions about the correct answers, although these
412 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
exchanges did not bring the class to a teacher-fronted mode. Examples of the
classroom interaction and feedback appear in (2) and (3). These excerpts
occurred as the students and teacher participated in a game show activity.
(2) Student: Why does the aliens attacked earth?Teacher: Right. Why did the aliens attack earth Recast
(3) Student: He have many spot in he have oneTeacher: Huh? One? Or many what? Quick Negotiation
All classroom activities were videotaped and audiotaped.
Control group
The experimental period was carefully selected in consultation with both the
experimental and the control group classroom teachers so that similar
linguistic input was provided to both groups, with the difference being the
opportunities for interactional feedback. The control group class also carried
out activities in small groups. The control group activities were based on
similar themes to the experimental group’s quiz show about television
cartoons. The control group worked with cartoon materials downloaded from
the internet and copied from comic books. Over the experimental period, the
control group had very similar opportunities to hear and produce the
linguistic forms targeted in the experiment, and the control group teacher’s
instructional and linguistic objectives were the same as those of the
experimental group teacher. However, the two groups differed in terms of
interactional feedback. The control group teacher avoided providing interac-
tional feedback except in response to direct requests. Daily audiotapes of the
control class confirmed that the input the control group received was
comparable to that of the experimental group and that opportunities for learners
to produce output were similar for both classes. In summary, the control group
received the same input and had the same opportunities to report noticing as
the experimental group, but very seldom received interactional feedback.
Data on noticing
Data on noticing were collected through four measures. On each of the four
measures, noticing was operationalized as a learner’s report indicating a
mismatch between the target language form and the learner’s non-targetlike
production or comprehension. As noted earlier, all of the interactions in each
of the classes were recorded so that each learner report of noticing could be
traced to the actual classroom interaction in which it occurred. The four
measures were as follows and are summarized in Figure 1 below:
(a) learning journals filled out during class time;
(b) oral stimulated recall protocols (described in Ericsson and Simon 1987
and Gass and Mackey 2000);
ALISON MACKEY 413
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
(c) written (L1) responses to a focused question about the nature of the
classroom activities and the goals of the teacher/host;
(d) written responses on (L2) questionnaires.
Each of these will now be described in more detail.
Learning journals
The learning journals were designed based on research empirically examining
learner reports about the L2 classroom (Allwright 1984; Slimani 1989;
Learning journals (3 times per week for 4 weeks)
Pre-test
Three 50-minutetreatment sessions
Focusedinteractional
feedback
Learning journals
Three 50-minuteclasses
No interactionalfeedback
Learning journals
Post-test
Stimulated recall
Focused L1 question
Learning journals
Learning journals
No stimulated recall
Questionnaires
Figure 1: Experimental design
414 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
Mackey et al. 2001). In the current study, learning journals were developed
to elicit the learners’ impressions about interaction in the L2 classroom, and
learners from both the experimental and control groups recorded their
impressions of the activities and their learning throughout the class time.
The learning journals were introduced on the first day of classes (five weeks
before the beginning of the experiment) as part of the regular instructional
technique, and the learners filled them out over the whole 14-week
instructional period. By the time of the experiment, the learners were
familiar with the journals, having filled them out three times a week for four
weeks. Their questionnaire responses revealed that they saw them as a
routine part of their class activities. The learning journals provided
opportunities for learners to record: (a) which language forms or concepts
they were noticing, including pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and
content; (b) who produced the reported items, for example the learner, the
teacher, or their classmates; and (c) whether the reported items were new to
the learner. The areas for language form contained numbered lines
to facilitate reporting (writing in) of individual items. The amount of space
provided for learners to write down items was the same for each linguistic
form. Learners indicated who produced each item and provided information
about their previous knowledge by checking the appropriate columns
next to each item. An example of part of the learning journal, for the area
of pronunciation, is provided in Figure 2. The grammar, vocabulary, and
content areas were identical to the pronunciation area.
Stimulated recall interview
The experimental group also participated in a stimulated recall interview
to determine whether the interactional feedback they received promoted
What are you noticing about…
Language focus format
Who said it? (check asmany as you want)
Was this new toyou?
Pronunciation
Tea
cher
Cla
ssm
ate
Me
In th
e bo
ok
Yes
, new
No,
hea
rdof
it
No,
kne
w it
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Figure 2: Sample learning journal
ALISON MACKEY 415
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
noticing of the target forms. Stimulated recall is a technique used to collect
learners’ introspections about the learning process. Following a language
learning experience, learners are presented with a stimulus (in this case, video
clips taken from the three days of treatment to reorient them to the time of
the interaction), and are asked to report their thoughts at that time (Gass and
Mackey 2000). This technique has been used in several studies to investigate
learner’s noticing of second language forms, both in laboratory (Mackey et al.
2000; Swain and Lapkin 2002) and classroom settings (Roberts 1995).
Twenty-five feedback episodes from the three classroom activities which
represented the full range of feedback and forms in the study were clipped
and recorded on one videotape together with five distractor episodes (that
did not have any linguistic focus). Learners saw and had the opportunity to
comment on clips in which they were receiving feedback, as well as clips
in which their classmates were receiving feedback. The day after the final
post-test (four days after the class activities), the videotape of clips was
played to the experimental class in a language laboratory. Each learner sat in
an individual sound booth in the laboratory with individual audio tape
recorders and headphones. The researcher played the videotape on a large
screen for the whole class, pausing after each episode for sixty seconds.
Before the playing of the videotape, learners were instructed that the
researcher wanted to know what they were thinking at the time when the
original interaction was going on. They were asked not to say anything
if they did not recall thinking anything at that time, and only to speak if they
could recall what they were thinking during the original interactions. This
instruction was repeated three times during the playing of the videotape. The
stimulated recall session took approximately one hour, including instructions.
Focused (L1) question
At the end of the stimulated recall session in the language lab, the
experimental group learners were asked whether they had noticed anything
in particular about the classroom quiz show activities and/or the goals of the
hosts that they wanted to report. They were invited to respond to this
question in their L1s or in English, in whichever they felt more comfortable.
They were asked to either record their thoughts on their audiotapes, or, if
they preferred, to write them down on a piece of paper that was supplied by
the researcher. No time limit was imposed for their responses to this focused
L1 question. The goal of the focused L1 question was to obtain responses that
were not constrained by the learners’ proficiency in English, or the modality
(oral or written) of their responses.
Final (L2) questionnaires
All learners in both classes filled out final questionnaires at the end of
the experiment, following the final post-test and the stimulated recall.
416 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
The questionnaires were designed to elicit information about what they may
have been noticing during the experimental period, as well as to assess the
likelihood of any extra-experimental input. At the end of the questionnaire,
the control group learners were also asked whether they had noticed
anything about their classes that they wanted to report. As with the
experimental group’s focused L1 question, they were invited to respond
using their L1 or in English, in whichever language they felt most
comfortable.
L2 development
Both the experimental and control groups completed the same tests. The
pre-test and the post-test both consisted of three similar tasks designed to
provide contexts for the structures to occur. The materials constructed for the
tests were relevant to the class content and linguistic focus, and were
developed in collaboration between the researcher and the two classroom
teachers. Like the stimulated recall sessions, the tests were given in the
language laboratory, where learners had headphones and individual tape
recorders. The time for responses was controlled so that each context for
each form received the same amount of time for production by each of the
learners. The first task was designed to elicit the past tense. Using an
overhead projector, learners were shown excerpts of cartoons based on ‘The
Simpsons’ and for each picture or clip, asked to (orally) provide a sentence
describing what happened to Homer yesterday. In the second task, designed to
elicit plurals, the participants were shown two similar pictures of a science
fiction scene and asked to describe a specified number of differences
between the two pictures. In the third task, designed to elicit question forms,
the participants were shown a short video clip from ‘South Park’
without sound and directed to ask questions about the scene as they
watched the clip.
For both experimental and control groups, the pre-test was completed on
the last instructional day of the week before treatment. As noted previously,
treatment took place over three class sessions (three different instructional
days) within one week. The post-test tasks were completed on the first
instructional day of the week following treatment. Not all of the learners
were present for all of the post-test tasks because some of them left the
laboratory to take breaks and since the response time was controlled, the
tasks could not be repeated.
Coding of noticing
Incidences of noticing of form were identified when learners’ reports
indicated that they were aware of the fact that their production or
comprehension of form was problematic or that the form was new to them.
For the experimental group, note was also taken when their reports also
ALISON MACKEY 417
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
indicated they were aware of the fact that they had received feedback about
their non-targetlike production of the form. As noted above, four measures
of noticing were used in this study to collect as much information as possible
about noticing. It is possible that participation in earlier measures of noticing
(e.g. the learning journals) heightened participant awareness, which may
have affected their reports during later measures (e.g. questionnaires and
focused L1 questions). Additionally, since learners in the experimental group
watched samples of interactional feedback on form in the stimulated recall
session, this session may have provided them with extra input as well as
extra opportunities for noticing. This might have influenced their responses
on the final questionnaire (but would not have impacted their performance
on the post-tests since the stimulated recall was carried out after the
post-tests).
Also, since learners completed learning journals during the classroom
interactions and then participated in a stimulated recall session based on
those same classroom interactions, it was possible for the experimental group
learners to report noticing the same feedback episode twice—once in class on
the learning journal and once during the stimulated recall session. Learning
journals and stimulated recall protocols were thus compared and examined
with the video recordings of the classroom data. If an experimental group
learner reported noticing the same episode both in the stimulated recall
and on the learning journal, it was only counted as one instance of noticing.
Since the stimulated recall interview took place after the final post-test,
any double reporting of noticing could not have impacted measures of
learning in this study.
As illustrated in the discussion section below, some researchers discuss
different types of noticing, indicating different levels of attention and
awareness, and representing different cognitive processes. While such
questions and distinctions were beyond the scope of the current study, the
coding reported here was designed to be sensitive to the continuum (and
uncertainties) involved in studying noticing. A learner might not provide a
report of noticing, but as discussed in the introduction, this cannot be taken
to clearly demonstrate that the learner did not notice. Contexts for noticing of
forms for each of the groups were tallied, and each report considered in that
context since control group learners did not carry out stimulated recalls. If a
learner reported noticing in at least two-thirds of the possible contexts, they
were considered to have ‘high’ reports of noticing. This practice was followed
in order to avoid binary categories such as ‘no noticing’ that are difficult to
support.
Coding of tests
Based on the measures of learning, a detailed interlanguage profile was
constructed for each learner. For plurals and past tense forms, increases in
targetlike usage of the forms were coded, counting their suppliance of these
418 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
targetlike forms in obligatory contexts. Only fully correct forms were
counted, and oversuppliance was not considered. For question formation,
each learner was assessed for developmental stage according to Pienemann
and Johnston’s (1987) scale for question development. A conservative
emergence criterion was used to assess learners’ developmental stage;
learners were assigned to the highest level on the scale for which they
produced two distinct questions during the test tasks. This is similar to the
criterion used in other acquisition studies involving question development
(Spada and Lightbown 1993; Mackey and Philp 1998; Silver 2000; Philp
2003; McDonough 2005).
Inter-rater reliability
Two independent coders coded 100 per cent of the noticing data of forms.
Inter-rater reliability for these data was 89 per cent based on simple
agreement. Where there was disagreement in coding data elicited through
stimulated recall (11.5 per cent of the data set), the data were reviewed and
re-rated by a third rater, and retained for the analysis. During this third
rating of these data, it became apparent that many of the disagreements
stemmed from one particular video clip of the 25 clips used in the stimulated
recall. Upon review of the tape, it was determined that the specific clip was
unclear, and therefore not a good example. The clip was discarded and all
learner reports related to it were removed from the data set. For the other
three sources of noticing data, disagreements between the two raters resulted
in removal from the data. For the test data, three independent coders each
coded 25 per cent of the data. Inter-rater agreement of 94 per cent was
obtained, and it was determined that a single coder could code the remaining
data. Disagreements in the test data that were coded by more than one rater
were not included in the analysis.
Attrition and unequal numbers
The study included multiple measures: pre-tests, instructional treatments,
four noticing measures and post-tests, and was situated in a classroom
context, which often entails higher attrition than in laboratory studies. Not
all learners were present for all measures. Norris and Ortega (2003) have
pointed out that ‘for approaches to acquisition research that make reference
to cognitive processes . . . a multiplicity of behavioral observations is gathered
to inform and triangulate interpretations’ (2003: 731). While necessary to
address the research questions, the multiplicity of observations collected in
the current study meant different levels of attrition, depending on the
measure used, and of course, in a study involving only 28 learners, low
numbers is also an issue. All this must be taken into account when
considering the results of this study.
ALISON MACKEY 419
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
Description of data
During the three 50-minute class periods production of the targeted forms
was in a similar range for both experimental and control groups, with no
significant differences in production of form found. For the feedback
provided to the experimental group, 20 per cent was directed at question
forms, 19 per cent at plurals, 15 per cent at lexis, and 11 per cent at past
tense morphology, with the remaining 35 per cent being related to concerns
of meaning or directed at multiple errors.
RESULTS
Overview of results
The first research question asked: ‘Does interactional feedback promote noticing
of L2 form in an L2 classroom context?’ As can be seen in Table 1 and Figure 3,
the reports from twelve of the fifteen learners in the experimental group
indicated high levels of noticing of question forms. Ten of the fifteen
learners’ reports indicated high levels of noticing of plural forms and five of
the fifteen learners’ reports indicated high levels of noticing of past tense. For
the control group, who did not receive form-focused interactional feedback
but who received equivalent input and output, the learners’ reports indicated
substantially less noticing of the forms. Only one of thirteen control group
learners’ reports indicated high levels of noticing of question forms, two
of thirteen reports indicated high levels of noticing of plural forms, and only
one of thirteen indicated high levels of noticing of past tense. These data
point to an association between provision of feedback and learners’ reports
about noticing in this L2 classroom context, suggesting that when
interactional feedback is provided on L2 forms, learners report noticing
those forms more than when feedback is not provided.
The second research question asked: ‘Is there a relationship between learners’
reports of noticing L2 forms and their L2 learning outcomes?’ As shown in Table 1,
and Figure 3, nine of the twelve learners in the experimental group who
reported noticing developed in terms of their production of questions. Five of
the ten learners in the experimental group who reported noticing developed
in terms of their production of plurals and one of the five learners in the
experiment who reported noticing developed in terms of the past tense. In
the control group, the learner who reported noticing questions and two
other learners developed in terms of their production of questions. In the
control group, none of the learners developed in terms of their use of plural
morphology, including the two who reported noticing it. For past tense, and
the learner who reported noticing as well as two other learners developed in
terms of their use of past tense. It should be noted that not all
participants who provided reports about noticing completed all post-tests.
For example, although fifteen learners had opportunities to report
420 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
noticing of questions, and twelve learners did so, only eleven of the
twelve learners who reported noticing completed the questions test, and
so could qualify as ‘developed.’ Of the twelve learners who reported noticing,
eleven were present for the tests and nine developed. As noted earlier, this is
because not all learners were present for all measures of development due to
subject attrition because a few learners took unscheduled breaks during the
test tasks.
A chi-square analysis using a continuity correction and combining the
two groups in terms of noticing and developing of question forms also points
to the likelihood of a significant relationship between noticing and learning,
with learners who noticed questions being significantly more likely to develop
in terms of higher-level questions (83 per cent of those who noticed questions
developed): �2(1, 23)¼ 7.326, p¼ 0.007 (continuity correction), p50.05.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0Questions Plurals Past tense
Noticed Developed
Linguistic form
Num
ber
of le
arne
rs w
ho n
otic
ed a
ndde
velo
ped
Figure 3: Noticing and learning for the experimental group
Table 1: Learners’ reports about noticing and learning
Experimental group Control group
Questions Plurals Past tense Questions Plurals Past tense
Noticing 12/15 10/15 5/15 1/13 2/13 1/13
Development 9/12 5/10 1/5 3/1 0/2 3/1
Learners presentfor tests
11/15 11/15 12/15 12/13 8/13 8/12
ALISON MACKEY 421
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
While numbers were too low for statistical analyses to be carried out on the
data for plurals and past tense, the trends can clearly be seen in Figure 3,
with 50 per cent (5 out of 10) of the learners who reported noticing plurals
developing, and 20 per cent (1 out of 5) of the learners who reported
noticing past tense developing. In summary, these data seem to point to a
relationship between noticing and learning for question formation, as shown
in Table 2 and Figure 3.
DISCUSSION
The purposes of this study were to determine whether interactional feedback
was associated with learners’ reports about noticing and, if so, whether there
was any relationship between learners’ reports about noticing and their
subsequent L2 learning. The results suggest that noticing and interactional
feedback were related. There was also a positive relationship between reports
about noticing and L2 development for one of the forms on which learners
received feedback: questions (83 per cent of those who noticed learned). For
plural forms, 50 per cent of those who noticed learned. For past tense forms,
the numbers were very low (20 per cent, or one out of five learners who
noticed learned).
As noted in the review of the literature, debate exists about how to best
operationalize and measure the noticing of L2 form. The analysis reported
here was intentionally conservative about assumptions about noticing. This
study was detailed in terms of multiple measures, but was also cautious in
terms of counting and coding. Thus, claims made on the basis of these data
are necessarily tentative. The study unequivocally associated higher levels of
short-term learning with higher reports of noticing for one form, and was
based on learners’ self-reports on a range of different measures. It is
important to note that noticing could not be associated with learning for the
other two forms. For example, five of the fifteen learners in the experimental
group reported noticing past tense; and only one of these five learners
developed on the immediate post-test in terms of past tense forms. It is
difficult to interpret these data based on such low numbers. In a nutshell,
more learners reported noticing question forms than any other form, and
more learners also acquired higher-level question forms than any other form.
The question form data seem relatively clear cut. It would be a mistake to
Table 2: Questions: noticing and development
Less noticing More noticing
No development 9 2
Development 2 10
�2¼7.326, p¼ 0.007.
422 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
equate paucity of data for the other two forms with the notion that noticing
and learning were not related. As several researchers have pointed out in the
past, nothing does not equal zero (Hudson 1993). The lack of unequivocal
answers for the other two forms illustrates the challenges involved when
dealing with noticing data.
The complexities of relating noticing and learning of form
To illustrate the complexities involved in coding and reporting data on
noticing, it is helpful to examine the case of learners who reported noticing
past tense forms, since they often mentioned this in the context of questions,
as illustrated in Example 4.
(4) Student: Why did the cook was arrested.Teacher: Er, why did?Student: The cook was arrested. The French cook was arrested
Stimulated Recall comments by Learner 1 on Example 4
At that time I ask her he arrested already? She ask me why,because past tense problem. He arrested already I ask her? Myquestion is not very good. No.
This learner’s stimulated recall comment was coded as noticing of both
past tense and questions. While the learner explicitly mentioned both forms,
she may have been noticing primarily the question form rather than the past
tense form, or vice versa, or focused equally on both. However, this
learner (like several others), despite being classified as reporting noticing
for both questions and past tense, developed in terms of questions, but did
not improve in terms of past tense. It is possible that while learners
mentioned noticing past tense forms, they were more aware of the question
formation feedback; or this feedback was more useful to them because of the
way it was provided, or because of their developmental level.
There are several reasons why learners may be more likely to notice
question forms than past tense forms. Since question formation involves
syntactic movement as well as morphological agreement, it may be more
salient than the addition of the past tense morpheme. Questions are also
very common in classroom discourse and were a key part of the task
activities for both classes in this study; thus, learners may be more likely to
be aware of questions in the input or feedback because of their high
communicative value. Also, the nature of feedback on questions may push
for modification of question forms more than past tense forms, which again
may enhance the salience of question forms.
While these data suggest that a relationship between feedback, noticing,
and language learning may exist at least for questions, and may point to the
possibility of a direct link between noticing and learning, they do not clearly
demonstrate that learning follows noticing, or is dependent on noticing.
It is important to take into account Schmidt’s (1995) warning: ‘I am not so
ALISON MACKEY 423
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
sanguine that the noticing hypothesis can be proved or disproved . . . reports
of learning without awareness will always flounder’ (Schmidt 1995: 28). In
the current study, some learners’ reports suggest that they noticed but did not
develop, and a few learners in the control group developed but did not report
noticing the target items, illustrating the problems Schmidt was talking about.
Different levels of noticing
Another interesting issue in the current study relates to the different types of
noticing reported. Because this research was conducted in a classroom
setting, where multiple learners had the opportunity to notice similar
linguistic episodes, analysis of stimulated recall protocols and learning
journals allowed for direct comparisons of learner noticing. Example 5
illustrates different aspects of noticing of the same episode.
(5) Classroom interaction
Student: Two alien and single female lawyerTeacher: Two aliens and the single female lawyer? Teacher recast
Learner 1 learning journal on Example 5
Under ‘Vocabulary’ Learner writes: ‘aliens’ and ‘single femalelawyer’
Learner 2 learning journal on Example 5
Under ‘Grammar’ Learner writes ‘two aliens’(underlining in original by Learner 2, both learners checked ‘No,heard of it’ in the box for ‘Was this new to you?’)
Because of the conservative measure of noticing in this study, Learner 1’s
journal report was not counted as noticing; judging this comment as noticing
of plural morphology would have entailed too much inference. The inclusion
of the comment under the grammar section as well as the underlining of
the plural morpheme in Learner 2’s learning journal make it relatively
clearer that Learner 2 did notice the plural form and so this was coded as
noticing. However, Learner 1’s report may indicate some level of awareness
of plural morphology. It would certainly not be possible to conclude that
Learner 1 did not notice the form. This case underscores a fundamental
limitation of empirical studies of noticing in interaction: researchers do not
have direct access to learners’ internal processing. For these reasons, it seems
possible that noticing may be more productively viewed along a continuum
rather than as a fixed occurrence as mentioned above in the coding section.
Noticing and interactional feedback type
Learners’ reporting of noticing may also be affected by interactional feedback
type. In this study, some grammatical forms (questions) were more often
424 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
negotiated, while others (plurals and past tense) were more often recast
although these differences were not significant. Learners reported noticing
questions more than they reported noticing plurals and past tense.
Negotiations involving questions also led to more modified output than
recasts following plurals or past tense. This may indicate a relationship
between modified output and noticing, similar to other recent empirical
findings pointing to a relationship between noticing and learning in
interactional contexts (e.g. Swain and Lapkin 2002; McDonough 2005;
McDonough and Mackey in press). Also, problems with questions and plurals
attracted roughly similar amounts of feedback (20 per cent and 19 per cent),
while past tense led to less feedback (11 per cent).
Claims have also been made that recasts and negotiation may benefit L2
development in different ways, for example through positive evidence or
corrective feedback or different response types (Mackey et al. 2000; Leeman
2003). It is also possible that different types of interactional feedback promote
learning through focusing attention in different ways (see for example, Gass
et al. 2003). Further research on the effects of different feedback types on
learning could eventually lead to a more refined understanding of how
interactional feedback promotes learning.
Limitations
As already discussed, an important limitation of the study concerns the small
sample size. Detailed classroom-based studies such as this, with their use
of intact groups, multiple tests, typically smaller sample sizes, and higher
attrition rates than those used in laboratory research, may not be
generalizable to a larger population of learners (Packard 1991). However,
studies using intact classes are also ‘more likely to have external validity
because [they are] conducted under conditions closer to those normally
found in educational contexts’ (Seliger and Shohamy 1989: 149). For this
reason, researchers such as Hulstijn (1997) have called for studies to be
carried out in a range of settings, including experimental laboratories,
experimental classrooms, and authentic instructional settings. Future
research on noticing clearly needs to be conducted with a larger population
of students. However, that being said, for many researchers, some questions
can only be addressed by using (smaller) intact classes rather than larger
groups of randomly chosen students in a laboratory setting, or multi-
classroom studies that require large grant support. It is important to realize
that this study tested claims about L2 acquisition in a quasi-experimental
setting, although it was certainly closer to authentic instruction than most
lab-based studies. As more is uncovered about the interaction–learning
relationship, studies like this one may be used to inform more ecologically
valid classroom research, so that instructors may eventually have another
tool in their kit, which meta-analyses suggest should not focus exclusively on
implicit or explicit feedback techniques (Norris and Ortega 2001).
ALISON MACKEY 425
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
Another issue that will need to be addressed in future research is
that of time. The current study was conducted over a relatively short period
of time. It would be of interest to determine how long any effects
of interactional feedback persisted over a longer time frame using an
appropriate longer term measures. Similarly, determining whether
a similar relationship among feedback, noticing, and learning exists for
other linguistic targets and L2s is also an important question that should be
addressed.
A third limitation of the current study concerns the many problems
involved in coding noticing data. The tendency for learners to make reports
that indicate noticing may have been heightened by the experimental
classroom activities that involved interactional feedback. Previous research
on interactional feedback, particularly recasts, has indicated that such
feedback may sometimes increase the salience of the forms. This salience
may have focused learner attention on the targeted forms, increasing the
likelihood of their being mentioned on learning journals or in the stimulated
recall session. It is possible that the learners in the control group did not
report noticing of certain forms because their focus was not oriented towards
them, even if they did notice them. As discussed already several times, a lack
of reported noticing is not equivalent to evidence of the non-occurrence
of noticing.
Finally, as with all studies involving self-reports, the data on noticing
reported here necessitated inference on the part of the researcher. While the
cautious operationalization of what did and did not count as evidence of
noticing and the calculation of noticing in the context of opportunities to
notice mitigated the likelihood of overstating the occurrence of noticing
in this study, the analysis was clearly unable to capture the full extent of the
complex relationship between noticing and learning.
CONCLUSION
This research has suggested there may be an association between noticing
and learning for one of the forms under investigation, and has pointed to
the role of noticing as a potential mediator in the feedback-learning
relationship. In particular, this study has provided evidence that noticing and
L2 development may be connected in terms of development of question
forms. It should be kept in mind, however, that this does not imply that
other forms of more explicit instruction are less or equally beneficial (see, for
example, the findings of Norris and Ortega’s (2001) meta-analysis in this
regard). In addition, since the present study uncovered variation among
learners as well as between treatment groups (i.e. some learners reported
noticing forms and feedback while others did not, and some reported
noticing more forms than others), future research would benefit from
426 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
investigating the role of individual differences, such as working memory,
motivation, or grammatical sensitivity, in the relationship between noticing
and second language learning.
Final version received November 2005
REFERENCES
Adams, R. 2003. ‘L2 output, reformulation, and
noticing: Implications for IL development,’
Language Teaching Research 7: 347–76.
Alanen, R. 1995. ‘Input enhancement and rule
presentation in second language acquisition’
in R. Schmidt (ed.): Attention and Awareness in
Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (Technical
Report No. 9) Honolulu: University of Hawai’i,
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center, pp. 259–302.
Allwright, R. 1984. ‘The importance of inter-
action in classroom language learning,’ Applied
Linguistics 5: 156–71.
Ellis, N. C. 1996. ‘Sequencing in SLA:
Phonological memory, chunking, and points of
order,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18:
91–126.
Ellis, N. C. and R. Schmidt. 1997. ‘Morphology
and longer distance dependencies: Laboratory
research illuminating the A in SLA,’ Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 19: 145–71.
Ellis, N. C. and S. Sinclair. 1996. ‘Working
memory in the acquisition of syntax: Putting
language in good order,’ The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology 49A/1: 234–50.
Ellis, R. 2001. ‘Introduction: Investigating
form-focused instruction,’ Language Learning
51/Supplement 1: 1–46.
Ellis, R. and X. He. 1999. ‘The roles of modified
input and output in the incidental acquisition
of word meanings,’ Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 21: 285–301.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen, and S. Loewen. 2001a.
‘Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons,’
Language Learning 51: 281–318.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen, andS. Loewen. 2001b.
‘Pre-emptive focus on form in the ESL class-
room,’ TESOL Quarterly 35: 407–32.
Ellis, R., T. Tanaka, and A. Yamazaki. 1994.
‘Classroom interaction, comprehension, and
the acquisition of L2 word meanings,’ Language
Learning 44: 449–91.
Ericsson, K. and H. A. Simon. 1987. ‘Verbal
reports on thinking’ in C. Faerch and G. Kasper
(eds): Introspection in Second Language Research.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters,
pp. 24–53.
Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second
Language Learner. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S. and A. Mackey. 2000. Stimulated Recall
Methodology in Second Language Research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S., and A. Mackey. in press. ‘Input,
interaction and output in SLA’ in B. VanPatten
and J. Williams (eds): Theories in SLA. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S. and E. Varonis. 1994. ‘Input, interaction,
and second language production,’ Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 16: 283–302.
Gass, S., I. Svetics, and S. Lemelin. 2003.
‘Differential effects of attention,’ Language
Learning 53: 497–546.
Grabe, W. and F. Stoller. 1997. ‘Reading and
vocabulary development in a second language:
A case study’ in J. Coady and T. Huckin (eds):
Second Language Vocabulary Instruction: A Rationale
for Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 98–122.
Hudson, T. 1993. ‘Nothing does not equal
zero,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15:
461–95.
Hulstijn, J. H. 1997. ‘Second language acquisition
research in the laboratory: Possibilities and
limitations,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition
19: 131–43.
Ishida, M. 2004. ‘Effects of recasts on the
acquisition of the aspectual form –te i-(ru) by
learners of Japanese as a foreign language,’
Language Learning 54: 311–94.
Iwashita,N. 2003. ‘Negative feedback and positive
evidence in task-based interaction: Differential
effects on L2 development,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 25: 1–36.
ALISON MACKEY 427
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
Izumi, S. 2002. ‘Output, input enhancement
and the noticing hypothesis,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 24: 541–77.
Leeman, J. 2003. ‘Recasts and second language
development: Beyond negative evidence,’
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 37–63.
Leow, R. P. 1997. ‘Attention, awareness, and
foreign language behavior,’ Language Learning
47: 467–505.
Leow, R. P. 1998. ‘Toward operationalizing
the process of attention in SLA: Evidence
for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994) fine-grained anal-
ysis of attention,’ Applied Psycholinguistics 19:
133–59.
Leow, R. P. 2000. ‘A study of the role of awareness
in foreign language behavior: Aware versus
unaware learners,’ Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 22: 557–84.
Leow, R. P. 2002. ‘Models, attention and aware-
ness in SLA: A response to Simard and Wong’s
‘‘alertness, orientation, and detection’’: the con-
ceptualization of attentional functions in SLA,’
(SSLA 23: 103–24). Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 24: 113–19.
Long, M. H. 1983. ‘Native speaker/non-native
speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input,’ Applied Linguistics 4:
126–41.
Long, M. H. 1996. ‘The role of the linguistic
environment in second language acquisition’
in W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (eds): Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition. New York:
Academic Press, pp. 413–68.
Long, M. H. 1998. ‘Focus on form in task-based
language teaching,’ University of Hawai’i Working
Papers in ESL 16: 35–49.
Long,M.H. 2006. ‘Recasts in SLA: The story so far’
in Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates (Chapter Four).
Long, M. H. and P. Robinson. 1998. ‘Focus on
form: Theory, research, process’ in C. Doughty
and J. Williams (eds): Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–41.
Long, M. H., S. Inagaki, and L. Ortega.
1998. ‘The role of implicit negative feedback
in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese
and Spanish,’ Modern Language Journal 82:
357–71.
Loschky, L. 1994. ‘Comprehensible input and
second language acquisition: What is the rela-
tionship?’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition
16: 303–25.
Lyster, R. 1998a. ‘Recasts, repetition, and ambi-
guity in L2 classroom discourse,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 20: 51–81.
Lyster, R. 1998b. ‘Negotiation of form, recasts, and
explicit correction in relation to error types
and learner repair in immersion classrooms,’
Language Learning 48: 183–218.
Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. ‘Corrective feed-
back and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 19: 37–66.
Mackey, A. 1999. ‘Input, interaction, and second
language development: An empirical study of
question formation in ESL,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 21: 557–87.
Mackey, A. 2002. ‘Beyond production: Learners’
perceptions about interactional processes,’
International Journal of Educational Research 37:
379–94.
Mackey, A. in press. ‘The relationship between
conversational interaction and second language
acquisition’ in A. Mackey (ed.): Conversational
Interaction in Second Language Acquisition:
A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press (Chapter One).
Mackey, A. and J. Philp. 1998. ‘Conversational
interaction and second language development:
Recasts, responses, and red herrings?’ TheModern
Language Journal 82: 338–56.
Mackey, A., S. Gass, and K. McDonough. 2000.
‘How do learners perceive implicit negative feed-
back?’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22:
471–97.
Mackey, A., K. McDonough, A. Fujii, and
T. Tatsumi. 2001. ‘Investigating learners’
reports about the L2 classroom,’ International
Review of Applied Linguistics 39: 285–308.
Mackey, A., and R. Oliver. 2002. ‘Interactional
feedback and children’s L2 development,’
System 30: 459–77.
Mackey, A., R. Oliver, and J. Leeman. 2003.
‘Interactional input and the incorporation
of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and
NNS-NNS adult and child dyads,’ Language
Learning 53: 35–66.
Mackey, A. and R. E. Silver. 2005. ‘Interactional
tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant
children in Singapore,’ System 33: 239–60.
Mackey, A. and S. Gass. 2006. ‘Pushing the
methodological boundaries in interaction
research: An introduction to the special
issue,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28:
169–78.
428 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
McDonough, K. 2005. ‘Identifying the impact of
negative feedback and learners’ responses on
ESL question development,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 27, 79–103.
McDonough, K. and A. Mackey. in press.
‘Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed
production and linguistic development,’
Language Learning.
Miyake,A. andN.F. Friedman. 1998. ‘Individual
differences in second language proficiency:
Working memory as ‘‘language aptitude’’ ’ in
A. E. Healy and L. E. Bourne (eds): Foreign
Language Learning: Psycholinguistic studies on
training and retention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,
pp. 339–64.
Norris, J. and L. Ortega. 2001. ‘Does type of
instruction make a difference? Substantive
findings from a meta-analytic review,’ Language
Learning 51(Supplement): 157–213.
Norris, J. and L. Ortega. 2003. ‘Defining and
measuring SLA’ in C. Doughty and M. Long
(eds.): The Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,
pp. 717–61.
Oliver, R. 1995. ‘Negative feedback in child
NS/NNS conversation,’ Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 17: 459–81.
Oliver, R. 2000. ‘Age differences in negotiation
and feedback in classroom and pairwork,’
Language Learning 50: 119–51.
Oliver, R. and A. Mackey. 2003. ‘Interactional
context and feedback in child ESL classrooms,’
Modern Language Journal 87: 519–43.
Packard, J. L. 1991. ‘Implications for classroom-
based research of various research designs’
in B. F. Freedman (ed.): Foreign Language Acquisi-
tion Research and the Classroom. Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath and Company, pp. 354–62.
Philp, J. 2003. ‘Constraints on ‘‘noticing the gap’’:
Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in
NS–NNS interaction,’ Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 25: 99–126.
Pica, T., L. Holliday, N. Lewis, and
L. Morgenthaler. 1989. ‘Comprehensible
output as an outcome of linguistic demands on
the learner,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition
11: 63–90.
Pienemann, M. and M. Johnston. 1987. ‘Factors
influencing the development of language
proficiency’ in D. Nunan (ed.): Applying Second
Language Acquisition Research. Adelaide:
National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP,
pp. 45–141.
Roberts, M. 1995. ‘Awareness and the efficacy of
error correction’ in R. Schmidt (ed.): Attention
and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (Tech.
Rep. #9), Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’I,
pp. 162–82.
Robinson, P. 1995. ‘Review article: Attention,
memory and the ‘‘noticing’’ hypothesis,’
Language Learning 45: 283–331.
Robinson, P. 2001. ‘Individual differences, cogni-
tive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning
conditions in second language acquisition,’
Second Language Research 17: 368–92.
Robinson, P. 2003. ‘Attention and memory
during SLA’ in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds):
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, pp. 631–78.
Rosa, E. and M. O’Neill. 1999. ‘Explicitness,
intake, and the issue of awareness: Another
piece to the puzzle,’ Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 21: 511–56.
Samuda, V. 2001. ‘Guiding relationships between
form and meaning during task performance:
The role of the teacher’ in M. Bygate,
P. Skehan, and M. Swain (eds): Researching
Pedagogic Tasks: Second language learning, teaching,
and research. Harlow, England: Longman,
pp. 119–40.
Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness
in second language learning,’ Applied Linguistics
11: 129–58.
Schmidt, R. 1993. ‘Awareness and second
language acquisition,’ Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 13: 206–26.
Schmidt, R. 1995. ‘Consciousness and foreign
language learning: A tutorial on the role of
attention and awareness in learning’ in
R. Schmidt (ed.): Attention and Awareness in
Foreign Language Learning. Honolulu: University
of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and
Curriculum Center, pp. 1–63.
Schmidt,R. 2001. ‘Attention’ in P. Robinson (ed.):
Cognition and Second Language Instruction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 3–32.
Schmidt, R. and S. Frota. 1986. ‘Developing basic
conversational ability in a second language:
A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese’
in R. Day (ed.): ‘Talking to learn’: Conversation
in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House, pp. 237–326.
Seliger, H. W. and E. Shohamy. 1989. Second
Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
ALISON MACKEY 429
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from
Silver, R. E. 2000. ‘Input, output, and negotiation:
Conditions for second language development’
in B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson,
C. A. Klee, and E. Tarone (eds): Social and Cognitive
Factors in Second Language Acquisition: Selected
proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research
Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 345–71.
Slimani, A. 1989. ‘The role of topicalization
in classroom language learning,’ System 17:
223–34.
Spada, N. and P. M. Lightbown. 1993. ‘Instruc-
tion and the development of questions in L2
classrooms,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition
15: 205–24.
Swain, M. 1995. ‘Three functions of output in
second language learning’ in G. Cook and
B. Seidelhofer (eds): Principle and Practice
in Applied Linguistics: Studies in honour of
H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 125–44.
Swain,M. 1998. ‘Focus on form through conscious
reflection’ in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds):
Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Swain, M. 2005. ‘The output hypothesis: Theory
and research’ in E. Hinkel (ed.): Handbook of
Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
pp. 471–83.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1995. ‘Problems in
output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language
learning,’ Applied Linguistics 16: 370–91.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2002. ‘Talking it
through: Two French immersion learners’
response to reformulation,’ International Journal
of Educational Research 37: 285–304.
Tomlin, R. S. and V. Villa. 1994. ‘Attention
in cognitive science and second language
acquisition,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition
16: 183–203.
Truscott, J. 1998. ‘Noticing in second language
acquisition: A critical review,’ Second Language
Research 14: 103–35.
Warden, M., S. Lapkin, M. Swain, and
D. Hart. 1995. ‘Adolescent language
learners on a three-month exchange: Insights
from their diaries,’ Foreign Language Annals 28:
537–50.
430 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
at Rijksuniversiteit G
roningen on Novem
ber 3, 2010applij.oxfordjournals.org
Dow
nloaded from