applied linguistics-2006-mackey-405-30.pdf

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 Sookmyung W

omen's U

niversity on October 22, 2013

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom

en's University on O

ctober 22, 2013http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

at Sookmyung W

omen's U



ownloaded from

at Sookm

yung Wom



Dow

nloaded from

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


























(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

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

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;


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

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


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

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


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

(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


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

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.


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

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


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

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


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

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.


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

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


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

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


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,’


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

Izumi, S. 2002. ‘Output, input enhancement

and the noticing hypothesis,’ Studies in Second


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


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


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


Lyster, R. 1998b. ‘Negotiation of form, recasts, and

explicit correction in relation to error types

and learner repair in immersion classrooms,’


Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. ‘Corrective feed-

back and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in

communicative classrooms,’ Studies in Second


Mackey, A. 1999. ‘Input, interaction, and second

language development: An empirical study of

question formation in ESL,’ Studies in Second


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.


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


Oliver, R. 2000. ‘Age differences in negotiation

and feedback in classroom and pairwork,’


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


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,’


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


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

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.


applied linguistics-2006-mackey-405-30.pdf

Documents

sookmyung womens university

l2 learning

language l2 acquisition

oxford university press

thatinteractional feedback

learners noticing

learningof l2 question

learnersto notice l2