Applied Linguistics 27/3: 405–430 ß Oxford University Press 2006 doi:10.1093/applin/ami051 Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second 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 Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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.
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.
422 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
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
424 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
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
426 FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
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
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
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
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