Applied Linguistics 27/3: 405430 doi:10.

1093/applin/ami051

Oxford University Press 2006

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.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013

INTRODUCTION
Longs 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: 4512). 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 modied 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? Clarication request 3 NNS: Ah here and one ah where one ah one of them on the left. Modied output 4 NS: Yeah ones behind the table and then the others on the left of the table.

406

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

(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. Modied output

In Example (1a), negotiation for meaning in the form of a clarication request was made by the native speaker in line 2 in response to the learners incomprehensible utterance in line 1. Subsequently, the non-native speaker modied 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 learners modied 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 learners 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 modied 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 dened 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

ALISON MACKEY

407

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 denition 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 featureto 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 inuenced 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 dened by Long (1998) as interactional moves directed at raising learner awareness of forms, including briey 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 Longs denition of focus on form, the process is crucially incidental; feedback provided during focus on form occurs in response to specic learner errors or concerns in meaning-focused communication. When triggered by learners comprehension and production problems, interactional feedback such as recasts and negotiation fall under Longs denition of focus on form (Long and Robinson 1998). Ellis (2001) also provides a denition of form-focused instruction, which, while similar to Longs focus on form, is more inclusive, incorporating both

408

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

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: 12) 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 ONeill 1999; Mackey 2002; Swain and Lapkin 2002). Attention and awareness in particular have been identied 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 learners 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 learners attention towards a mismatch between the target input and the learners own interlanguage form (i.e. noticing the gap, Schmidt and Frota 1986), while at the same time providing learners with opportunities to produce modied output (Swain 1995, 1998, 2005). As Gass and Varonis (1994) explain, negotiated interaction can crucially focus the learners 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;

ALISON MACKEY

409

Leow 1997; Rosa and ONeill 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 ner 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 Lapkins (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 nely 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 nely grained coding systems require more interpretation on the researchers part.

410

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

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 specic 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 prociency 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 universitys 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

ALISON MACKEY

411

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 understanding 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.

412

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

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 45 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 nal 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 Homers 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 classs 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

ALISON MACKEY

413

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) (3) Student: Why does the aliens attacked earth? Teacher: Right. Why did the aliens attack earth Recast

Student: He have many spot in he have one Teacher: 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 groups 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 teachers 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 interactional feedback except in response to direct requests. Daily audiotapes of the control class conrmed 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 learners report indicating a mismatch between the target language form and the learners 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 lled out during class time; (b) oral stimulated recall protocols (described in Ericsson and Simon 1987 and Gass and Mackey 2000);

414

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Learning journals (3 times per week for 4 weeks)

Pre-test

Three 50-minute treatment sessions Focused interactional feedback Learning journals Learning journals

Three 50-minute classes No interactional feedback

Learning journals

Post-test Learning journals

Stimulated recall

No stimulated recall

Focused L1 question

Questionnaires

Figure 1: Experimental design

(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;

ALISON MACKEY

415

Language focus format What are you noticing about Pronunciation Teacher Who said it? (check as many as you want) In the book Classmate Was this new to you? No, knew it No, heard of it Yes, new

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Figure 2: Sample learning journal

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 rst day of classes (ve weeks before the beginning of the experiment) as part of the regular instructional technique, and the learners lled them out over the whole 14-week instructional period. By the time of the experiment, the learners were familiar with the journals, having lled 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

Me

416

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

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 learners noticing of second language forms, both in laboratory (Mackey et al. 2000; Swain and Lapkin 2002) and classroom settings (Roberts 1995). Twenty-ve 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 ve 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 nal 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 prociency in English, or the modality (oral or written) of their responses.

Final (L2) questionnaires

All learners in both classes lled out nal questionnaires at the end of the experiment, following the nal post-test and the stimulated recall.

ALISON MACKEY

417

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 groups 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 rst 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 ction scene and asked to describe a specied 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 rst 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 identied 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

418

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

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 inuenced their responses on the nal 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 twiceonce 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 nal 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 difcult to support.

Coding of tests
Based on the measures of learning, a detailed interlanguage prole 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

ALISON MACKEY

419

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 Johnstons (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 specic 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.

420

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

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 signicant 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 rst 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 fteen learners in the experimental group indicated high levels of noticing of question forms. Ten of the fteen learners reports indicated high levels of noticing of plural forms and ve of the fteen 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 ve 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 fteen learners had opportunities to report

ALISON MACKEY

421

Table 1: Learners reports about noticing and learning

Experimental group Questions Noticing Development Learners present for tests 12/15 9/12 11/15 Plurals 10/15 5/10 11/15 Past tense 5/15 1/5 12/15 Control group Questions 1/13 3/1 12/13 Plurals 2/13 0/2 8/13 Past tense 1/13 3/1 8/12

Noticed 14

Developed

Number of learners who noticed and developed

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Questions Plurals Past tense

Linguistic form

Figure 3: Noticing and learning for the experimental group

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 signicant relationship between noticing and learning, with learners who noticed questions being signicantly more likely to develop in terms of higher-level questions (83 per cent of those who noticed questions developed): 2(1, 23) 7.326, p 0.007 (continuity correction), p50.05.

422

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Table 2: Questions: noticing and development

Less noticing No development Development
2 7.326, p 0.007.

More noticing 2 10

9 2

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 ve 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, ve of the fteen learners in the experimental group reported noticing past tense; and only one of these ve learners developed on the immediate post-test in terms of past tense forms. It is difcult 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

ALISON MACKEY

423

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? My question is not very good. No. This learners 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 classied 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 modication 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 Schmidts (1995) warning: I am not so

424

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

sanguine that the noticing hypothesis can be proved or disproved . . . reports of learning without awareness will always ounder (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: Teacher: Two alien and single female lawyer Two aliens and the single female lawyer? Teacher recast

Learner 1 learning journal on Example 5 Under Vocabulary Learner writes: aliens and single female lawyer 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 1s 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 2s learning journal make it relatively clearer that Learner 2 did notice the plural form and so this was coded as noticing. However, Learner 1s 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 xed 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

ALISON MACKEY

425

negotiated, while others (plurals and past tense) were more often recast although these differences were not signicant. Learners reported noticing questions more than they reported noticing plurals and past tense. Negotiations involving questions also led to more modied output than recasts following plurals or past tense. This may indicate a relationship between modied output and noticing, similar to other recent empirical ndings 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 benet 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 rened 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 multiclassroom 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 interactionlearning 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).

426

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

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 benecial (see, for example, the ndings of Norris and Ortegas (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 benet from

ALISON MACKEY

427

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: 34776. 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 Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, pp. 259302. Allwright, R. 1984. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning, Applied Linguistics 5: 15671. Ellis, N. C. 1996. Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 91126. 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: 14571. 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: 23450. Ellis, R. 2001. Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction, Language Learning 51/Supplement 1: 146. 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: 285301. Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen, and S. Loewen. 2001a. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons, Language Learning 51: 281318. Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen, and S. Loewen. 2001b. Pre-emptive focus on form in the ESL classroom, TESOL Quarterly 35: 40732. Ellis, R., T. Tanaka, and A. Yamazaki. 1994. Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings, Language Learning 44: 44991. 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. 2453. 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: 283302. Gass, S., I. Svetics, and S. Lemelin. 2003. Differential effects of attention, Language Learning 53: 497546. 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. 98122. Hudson, T. 1993. Nothing does not equal zero, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 46195. Hulstijn, J. H. 1997. Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Possibilities and limitations, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 13143. 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: 31194. Iwashita, N. 2003. Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 136.

428

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Izumi, S. 2002. Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 54177. Leeman, J. 2003. Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 3763. Leow, R. P. 1997. Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior, Language Learning 47: 467505. Leow, R. P. 1998. Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villas (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention, Applied Psycholinguistics 19: 13359. 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: 55784. Leow, R. P. 2002. Models, attention and awareness in SLA: A response to Simard and Wongs alertness, orientation, and detection: the conceptualization of attentional functions in SLA, (SSLA 23: 10324). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 11319. Long, M. H. 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input, Applied Linguistics 4: 12641. 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. 41368. Long, M. H. 1998. Focus on form in task-based language teaching, University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 16: 3549. 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. 1541. 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: 35771. Loschky, L. 1994. Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 30325.

Lyster, R. 1998a. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 5181. Lyster, R. 1998b. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms, Language Learning 48: 183218. Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 3766. Mackey, A. 1999. Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 55787. Mackey, A. 2002. Beyond production: Learners perceptions about interactional processes, International Journal of Educational Research 37: 37994. 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? The Modern Language Journal 82: 33856. Mackey, A., S. Gass, and K. McDonough. 2000. How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 47197. Mackey, A., K. McDonough, A. Fujii, and T. Tatsumi. 2001. Investigating learners reports about the L2 classroom, International Review of Applied Linguistics 39: 285308. Mackey, A., and R. Oliver. 2002. Interactional feedback and childrens L2 development, System 30: 45977. 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: 3566. Mackey, A. and R. E. Silver. 2005. Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore, System 33: 23960. 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: 16978.

ALISON MACKEY

429

McDonough, K. 2005. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners responses on ESL question development, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 79103. McDonough, K. and A. Mackey. in press. Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production and linguistic development, Language Learning. Miyake, A. and N. 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. 33964. Norris, J. and L. Ortega. 2001. Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review, Language Learning 51(Supplement): 157213. 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. 71761. Oliver, R. 1995. Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17: 45981. Oliver, R. 2000. Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork, Language Learning 50: 11951. Oliver, R. and A. Mackey. 2003. Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms, Modern Language Journal 87: 51943. Packard, J. L. 1991. Implications for classroombased research of various research designs in B. F. Freedman (ed.): Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, pp. 35462. Philp, J. 2003. Constraints on noticing the gap: Nonnative speakers noticing of recasts in NSNNS interaction, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 99126. 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: 6390. 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. 45141.

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 HawaiI, pp. 16282. Robinson, P. 1995. Review article: Attention, memory and the noticing hypothesis, Language Learning 45: 283331. Robinson, P. 2001. Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition, Second Language Research 17: 36892. Robinson, P. 2003. Attention and memory during SLA in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds): Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 63178. Rosa, E. and M. ONeill. 1999. Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 51156. 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. 11940. Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning, Applied Linguistics 11: 12958. Schmidt, R. 1993. Awareness and second language acquisition, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 20626. 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 Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, pp. 163. Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention in P. Robinson (ed.): Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 332. 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. 237326. Seliger, H. W. and E. Shohamy. 1989. Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

430

FEEDBACK AND NOTICING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

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. 34571. Slimani, A. 1989. The role of topicalization in classroom language learning, System 17: 22334. Spada, N. and P. M. Lightbown. 1993. Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 20524. 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. 12544. 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. 47183. Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning, Applied Linguistics 16: 37091. Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2002. Talking it through: Two French immersion learners response to reformulation, International Journal of Educational Research 37: 285304. Tomlin, R. S. and V. Villa. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 183203. Truscott, J. 1998. Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review, Second Language Research 14: 10335. 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: 53750.