L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development

This study is a replication and extension of Swain and Lapkin's (in press) study of the developmental effects of learners noticing differences between their own and native speaker output. In their study, task repetition, noticing and participation in stimulated recalls were all factors that might have contributed to more targetlike usage in subsequent output. The current study separated the effects of each of these factors. Fifty-six L2 Spanish learners were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) Task repetition (participants repeated the tasks without additional treatment); (2) Noticing (participants repeated the task and compared their original output to NS reformulation); and (3) Noticing + SR (same as Noticing group with the addition of a stimulated recall session). Reformulations were traced throughout the learners’ output. Analysis of the data indicates that learners noticed differences between their own essays and the reformulated writing, and that there were quantitative differences in the output of participants from different treatment groups, with learners who participated in both noticing and stimulated recall incorporating significantly more targetlike forms in the post-treatment output than learners from the other groups.

[1]  P. Robinson.  Individual differences and instructed language learning , 2002 .

[2]  Ling Shi,et al.  Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students' compositions , 1998 .

[3]  Alison Mackey,et al.  9. Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development , 2002 .

[4]  Andrew D. Cohen.  Reformulating Second-Language Compositions: A Potential Source of Input for the Learner. , 1983 .

[5]  T. Lynch,et al.  Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning , 2000 .

[6]  J. Leeman.  RECASTS AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT , 2003, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[7]  Karen E. Johnson,et al.  Peer Review Negotiations: Revision Activities in ESL Writing Instruction , 1994 .

[8]  R. Ellis.  Factors in the Incidental Acquisition of Second Language Vocabulary from Oral Input: A Review Essay. , 1999 .

[9]  Christine Goring. Kepner.  An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second‐Language Writing Skills , 1991 .

[10]  J. Hedgcock,et al.  Some Input on Input: Two Analyses of Student Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing , 1996 .

[11]  Stephen Krashen,et al.  The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications , 1986 .

[12]  S. Gass,et al.  Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research , 2000 .

[13]  Merrill Swain,et al.  Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing , 2013 .

[14]  J. Truscott,et al.  Noticing in second language acquisition: a critical review , 1998 .

[15]  R. Schmidt.  The role of consciousness in second language learning , 1990 .

[16]  Jenefer Philp.  CONSTRAINTS ON “NOTICING THE GAP” , 2003, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[17]  M. Swain.  Three functions of output in second language learning , 1995 .

[18]  R. L. Allwright,et al.  Investigating Reformulation as a Practical Strategy for the Teaching of Academic Writing , 1988 .

[19]  Merrill Swain,et al.  Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects , 2001 .

[20]  P. Robinson.  Attention, Memory, and the “Noticing” Hypothesis , 1995 .

[21]  R. Leow.  Attention, Awareness, and Foreign Language Behavior , 1997 .

[22]  Shuqiang Zhang.  Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class , 1995 .

[23]  M. Swain.  Communicative competence : Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development , 1985 .

[24]  Donald S. Qi,et al.  Exploring the Role of Noticing in a Three-Stage Second Language Writing Task. , 2001 .

[25]  Susan M. Gass,et al.  Input, interaction, and the second language learner , 1994 .

[26]  J. Hedgcock,et al.  Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction , 1992 .

[27]  P. Lightbown,et al.  Recasts as Feedback to Language Learners , 2001 .

[28]  M. Swain.  The output hypothesis : Just speaking and writing aren't enough , 1993 .

[29]  V. Barnett,et al.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1975 .

[30]  Shinichi Izumi,et al.  DOES OUTPUT PROMOTE NOTICING AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 2000 .

[31]  R. S. Tomlin,et al.  Attention in Cognitive Science and Second Language Acquisition , 1994, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[32]  B. Mclaughlin,et al.  RESTRUCTURING OR AUTOMATICITY? READING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE , 1986 .

[33]  Alison Mackey.  Feedback, noticing and second language development:An empirical study of L2 classroom interaction , 2000 .

[34]  Fiona Hyland,et al.  The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers , 1998 .

[35]  Andrew B. Gonzalez,et al.  Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning; Issues and Approaches. Jack C. Richards, editor. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers, 1978 , 1979 .

[36]  Michael H. Long.  The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition , 1996 .

[37]  R. Barnard.  Cognition and Second Language Instruction , 2003 .

[38]  P. Skehan.  语言学习认知法 = A cognitive approach to language learning , 1998 .

[39]  Olga S. Villamil,et al.  Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision , 2000 .

[40]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Memory for language , 2001 .