Languagehttp://ltr.sagepub.

com/ Teaching Research

L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development

Rebecca Adams Language Teaching Research 2003 7: 347 DOI: 10.1191/1362168803lr127oa The online version of this article can be found at: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Language Teaching Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/7/3/347.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 1, 2003 What is This?

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Sookmyung Women's University on October 22, 2013

Language Teaching Research 7,3 (2003); pp. 347376

L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development

Rebecca Adams Georgetown University

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

I Introduction This study is an investigation of the effects of noticing and measures of noticing on second language learning through writing tasks. It is a replication and extension of Swain and Lapkins (in press) study of noticing through reformulated writing and its impact on second language learning. In addition to replicating the prior study, the current study seeks to tease apart the effects of noticing and of task repetition on the incorporation of targetlike forms in second language writing.
Address for correspondence: Rebecca Adams, Linguistics Department, ICC 460, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057; e-mail: rja@georgetown.edu Arnold 2003 10.1191/1362168803lr127oa

348

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

1 Writing in second language acquisition The Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) characterizes the nature of second language learning through interaction and asserts that meaningful interaction in the second language is a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for learners to acquire second language competence. Longs explanation indicates that while interaction cannot explain the entire phenomenon of second language learning, it is highly unlikely if not impossible for learners to acquire second language communicative competence without engaging in meaningful interaction. The hypothesis brings together insights from Hatchs (1978) contention that conversation and comprehension are essential to the development of second language communicative competence as well as Swains (1985, 1995) explanation of the importance of output in language acquisition. Swain proposed the Output Hypothesis, which suggests that output in the L2 is related to second language learning. Swain (1995) explains that output pushes learners to process language more deeply (with more mental effort) than does input (p. 126), suggesting that output is not the result of the language learning process, but rather a step in the process. Swain (1995) outlines several reasons why the act of producing output in the second language might lead to second language development. These reasons include noticing, hypothesis testing, and internalizing metalinguistic information. Her claims about noticing within the output hypothesis draw on work from Schmidt (1990; Schmidt and Frota, 1986), who claims that learners need to notice a form before they can acquire it. Noticing can take place when learners, in the process of generating output, perceive that they do not know how to express their intended meaning. A specific aspect of noticing, noticing the gap, occurs when learners receive corrective feedback and notice that it differs from their original output. The primary aim of Swain and Lapkin (in press), the study extended here, is to explore the relationship between noticing in writing to development in the use of targetlike forms. Swain and Lapkin hypothesized that allowing learners to compare their own writing with native-speaker reformulations would push learners to notice gaps in their second language production, which would in turn allow them to develop the missing linguistic information. The noticing hypothesis and its relationship to the

Rebecca Adams

349

current study will be discussed in more detail below. Writing and speaking are the two modalities that require learners to produce output. While both writing and speaking can allow learners to notice differences between their language and native speak, to test their IL hypotheses, and to internalize linguistic information, there are important differences between speech and writing that have often been overlooked in the discussion of output. Speech is ephemeral in order for learners to notice the differences between their speech and that of others, they presumably need sufficient processing space available to hold both versions in memory and compare them. Preliminary support for the connection between working memory and learning from interaction has been found in recent empirical work (Mackey et al., 2002a; Mackey et al., 2002b) and working memory capacity has been included as a factor in models of forms-processing (Doughty, 2001) and of lexical knowledge acquisition (Ellis, 2001). With the ongoing processing demands of conversation, it is possible that learners are not always able to do make this comparison. When learners write and receive corrective feedback, however, they are able to compare their own output with the written response of the NS, easing the processing demands. Conversely, speaking is an online activity there is little time for erasing or drafting in speech. Thus, when looking at writing for evidence of second language development, it is important to remember that learners writing may conceal self-corrections and other evidence of developing interlanguage rules or may reflect instructed rules that have not necessarily become part of learners internal grammar. 2 Writing and feedback Feedback on second language learners writing is an issue of concern to both language teachers and second language researchers. While teacher education literature often prescribes certain methods of giving feedback on writing (Reid, 1982), very little empirical research on the effectiveness of written feedback techniques has been conducted to date (Carson, 2001; Hyland, 1998; Paulus, 1999). In the growing empirical literature, many common methods of providing feedback for second language writing have been called into question. Methods such as peer

350

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

review (De Guerro and Vamil, 2000; Mendoca and Johnson, 1994; Paulus, 1999; Zhang, 1995), teacher written corrections (Conrad and Goldstein, 1999; Hedgecock and Lefkowitz, 1994; Hyland, 1998; Kepner, 1991), and teacherlearner oral writing conferences (Hedgecock and Lefkowitz, 1992, 1996; Hyland, 2000; Kassen, 1988; Shi, 1998) have been challenged, as have notions such as the multidraft model of feedback, in which teachers give feedback first on content, commenting on form only in later drafts (Ashwell, 2000). The studies mentioned above have challenged teacher and researcher assumptions about second language writing. Some of these criticisms of writing correction are specifically relevant to the current study. For example, some researchers investigate the possibility that traditional feedback can be discouraging to L2 learners (Hyland, 1998). Papers returned covered with marks can seem overwhelming, and teachers are rarely able to truly balance positive and negative feedback (Hedgecock and Lefkowitz, 1994). Additionally, written corrections can be confusing to L2 learners, as it is often difficult for learners to determine exactly what in their output is non-targetlike from written comments only (Hyland, 1998). Because traditional feedback methods commonly prescribe marking only what is incorrect in learners work, they may present learners with mostly negative evidence (Kassen, 1988) and lack sufficient positive evidence to refine IL hypotheses. Finally, corrections (especially from NSs and teachers) tend to be received passively by learners (Hedgecock and Lefkowitz, 1994; Hyland, 2000). Such corrections therefore may not push learners to use the information to test their IL hypotheses and internalize the linguistic evidence. 3 Reformulated writing The form of correction employed in this study and in Swain and Lapkins study, reformulated writing, avoids these potential problems with traditional written feedback. Reformulated writing is a specific sort of written feedback that may serve as a partial response to these issues (Cohen, 1983; Swain and Lapkin, in press). Cohen defines reformulation as having a native writer of the target language rewrite the learners essay, preserving all the learners ideas, making it sound as nativelike as possible (1983: 4). Rather

Rebecca Adams

351

than correcting (pointing out learner errors for them), reformulators rewrite learner texts as a NS would write them. The content is left intact, but the language is made nativelike. As Allwright et al. (1988) explain, making a learner text nativelike involves making changes at multiple levels, including syntactic, morphological, and lexical changes. They found that when reformulated writing was used in a class setting, discussion of reformulated texts was an important part of using the technique, and they called for studies of learners rationale for making changes in their writing. Brooks and Swain (2001) incorporated these ideas in a study of four pairs of adults engaged in comparing texts they created as dyads in a task with reformulated versions of their texts. They found that learners in a dyad could fill the expert role in discussing writing, but when neither of the dyads had sufficient L2 knowledge, they turned to the reformulation as the expert. In some ways, reformulations may be thought of as an extended, written recast, in that they provide both implicit negative evidence that some form was non-targetlike as well as positive evidence of how the idea could be expressed in a targetlike manner (for a review of the role of recasts as oral feedback, see Nicholas et al., 2001). Reformulated writing also allows learners opportunities to compare their own original writing with NS reformulations. In addition, since the errors are not pointed out for the learners, the use of reformulated writing can push learners to actively seek differences between their IL and the TL, leading to noticing, which in turn may lead to IL development. Qi and Lapkin (2001) found that the learners noticed differences between their own and reformulated writing. This sort of noticing facilitated by reformulated writing has been related to improvements in later revisions (Qi and Lapkin, 2001; Swain and Lapkin, in press). 4 Noticing and learning Several areas of research, including research on attention (Leow, 1997), awareness (Tomlin and Villa, 1994), and memory (Robinson, 1995; in press) have implicated noticing as a necessary condition for second language development. For purposes of this study, Schmidts (2001) definition of noticing has been adopted. Schmidt

352

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

limits noticing to a very low level of abstraction . . . assuming that the objects of attention and noticing are elements of the surface structure of utterances in the input instances of language, rather than any abstract rules or principles (p. 5). The purpose of this restricted definition is to separate metalinguistic awareness from noticing by limiting noticing to awareness at a very low level of abstraction (Schmidt, 2001: 5). Noticing can be prompted, as discussed above, when learners, in the context of interaction, realize that they do not know the necessary forms to express a given meaning. Noticing can also occur when learners allocate attentional resources to specific features in the input (Schmidt, 1990), or when forms are made salient through interactional feedback (Leeman, in 2003; Long, 1996; Nicholas et al., 2001; Pica, 1994, 1997). In both of these situations, learners are able to compare their own interlanguage forms with the targetlike forms supplied in the input and determine where discrepancies lie. This aspect of noticing is also referred to as noticing the gap (Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 2001; Schmidt and Frota, 1986; Swain, 1995). While the debate about the role of noticing in SLA theory and second language research methodology is on-going (Schmidt, 2001; Truscott, 1998), several studies indicate that noticing at least facilitates learning (Ellis, 1994; Lapkin and Swain, 2001; Schmidt and Frota, 1986; Schmidt, 1990; Swain, 1993, 1995, 1998). Mackey (2000) investigated the effects of learners noticing the gap through interactional feedback in the classroom on the development of morphosyntactic and lexical forms. The results indicated that learners who demonstrated more noticing developed more accurate use of certain, but not all, of the forms investigated. Izumi and Bigelow (2000) found that noticing led to learning as well, but that this was mitigated by the type of task used to promote noticing. Because reformulations can be used to encourage learners to notice differences between their own output and reformulated output, they can facilitate noticing the gap, which can in turn influence second language development.

Rebecca Adams 5 Swain and Lapkin (in press)

353

As noted earlier, this research study is a replication and extension of Swain and Lapkin (in press), which investigated the effect of reformulated writing on learner noticing and development. In Swain and Lapkins study, a pair of English L1 learners in a French immersion programme was asked to participate in a jigsaw task. Each learner was given half of a picture story and instructed to interact orally to put together the entire story. They were then instructed to write the story collaboratively. The story was given to a NS of French to reformulate; the original story and the reformulation were given to the learners and they were asked to find the differences between the two versions. Following the noticing session, the learners participated in a stimulated recall protocol of the noticing session in order to determine whether noticing had actually taken place. Based on the learners discourse during the noticing session and their verbal reports, it was determined that the learners did notice differences between their IL and the reformulation. As a post-test, a week after the original task session, each learner was individually provided with the original story and instructed to correct the errors. Swain and Lapkins study established that noticing was enabled by reformulated writing and that it led to incorporation of reformulations in the post-treatment task of correcting earlier nontargetlike usage. However, the post-treatment task took place after the learners had participated in a stimulated recall session. In this session, they were again exposed to the differences between their original output and the reformulation and were able to reflect on their thoughts when they first noticed these differences. While the intent of the stimulated recall was to determine what the learners had noticed about the feedback, it is possible that additional learning occurred during these sessions. Since the stimulated recall session occurred before the post-test, it is not possible to determine whether the stimulated recall, the noticing, or a combination of the two led to increased accuracy on certain forms in the post-test. Additionally, the learners dealt with very similar tasks (involving the same story based on the same prompts) twice. Part of their improvement could be related to task repetition effects. When learners perform a similar task more than once within a short time span, they can be expected to improve simply because increased

354

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

task familiarity decreases the task processing difficulty (Skehan, 1998), which can enhance the accuracy of learner output (Bygate, 1996, 2001; Lynch and McLean, 2000, 2001). Thus, there were three possible sources for the learners incorporation of more targetlike forms in the second writing of the story: noticing the gap through reformulated writing, reinforcing the input through stimulated recall, and decreasing the processing demands through task repetition. Because of the exploratory nature of Swain and Lapkins research, teasing apart the effects of different variables was not the focus of the study, nor did the in-depth case study approach allow for comparison of different treatment effects. The purpose of extending this research, therefore, is to partition the effects of the various components of their study. While Swain and Lapkin do not justify the use of stimulated recall before the post-test, other researchers (Gass and Mackey, 2000) have raised concerns of the reactivity of stimulated recall. They contend that stimulated recall allows learners extra opportunities to reflect on and process linguistic data they receive from experimental treatments. Participation in the stimulated recall process additionally makes different demands on learners than the noticing treatment in the study, as the learners were not observing differences between their IL output and the more targetlike reformulation, but rather discussing the thoughts they had when previously noticing those differences. Since stimulated recall is not only another learning opportunity, but qualitatively different learning opportunity than the noticing treatment, its inclusion in the experiment before the post-test likely influenced the conclusions inferred from the research. Separating the effects of noticing and stimulated recall may also clarify the implications for applying reformulations to second language learning. If comparing learner writing with reformulated writing leads to second language learning, this treatment could be investigated in a classroom setting and integrated into classroom learning. However, if learning is the result of both stimulated recall and noticing, it is harder to see the practical application, as stimulated recall does not lend itself easily to most classroom situations. Hence, separating noticing, stimulated recall, and task repetition in the experimental design can elucidate the implications of Swain and Lapkins findings to second language pedagogy. If

Rebecca Adams

355

learning results from noticing the gap, the study could lend support to the noticing hypothesis. If it is the result of stimulated recall or task repetition, Swain and Lapkin (in press) cannot be interpreted as evidence for the role of noticing in second language learning. 6 Research questions The current study investigates the effects of task repetition, noticing facilitated by exposure to reformulated writing, and stimulated recall by addressing the following research questions: 1. Do learners incorporate noticed TL forms from reformulations in their output? (adapted from Swain and Lapkin, in press) 2. Does noticing facilitated by exposure to NS reformulations lead to more incorporation of target-like forms than task repetition without the noticing treatment? 3. Does participation in stimulated recall sessions in addition to the noticing treatment impact learners incorporation of reformulations in their post-treatment writing? II Methodology This experiment took place in university Spanish L2 classrooms and laboratories. The researcher gave instructions and monitored the learners to make certain that they stayed on task and communicated in the L2. The teachers did not participate at all in the data collection, nor did the researcher and the teachers assist learners in completing the research tasks. The study involved a pretest, treatment, post-test design. In this section, the participants and data collection procedures will be described. 1 Participants The participants for the study (N = 56) were Spanish L2 language learners at a North American university. All were either NSs of English or very highly proficient L2 speakers of English (the four NNSs had similar incidence of errors as the NSs of their treatment groups). Five classes of learners participated in the study: four classes of Intermediate I (third semester class in the undergraduate Spanish FL curriculum) and one class of Intermediate Intensive

356

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

Learner characteristics Learner characteristics 1822 Male Female 1 (Intensive) 2 3 4 5 24 32 10 15* 14 12 5

Table 1 Factor Age Gender Classes

Note: *Learners performed tasks in pairs. Odd numbers of subjects indicates that one of the pair did not take the post-test.

(third and fourth semester Spanish in one semester). The data were collected three weeks into the semester to ensure that the instruction in the Intermediate Intensive course had not progressed beyond the Intermediate I classes. Treatment groups consisted of learners from each of the five classes in order to ensure an equal distribution of learners from Intermediate I and Intermediate Intensive in all treatment groups. A description of the participants can be found in Table 1. 2 Tasks The study follows a pre-test/treatment/post-test design, using an interactive task, a jigsaw task (adopted from Swain and Lapkin, in press), as both the pre- and post-test. The task consisted of a sequence of eight pictures that together formed a story (see Appendix A). For the pre-test, learners were each given four pictures and were required to describe their pictures to each other in order to jointly reconstruct the story. They were then instructed to write out their story. While the learners were working on the task, they were required to speak only Spanish. For the post-test, learners were individually given the complete set of pictures and instructed to write out the story. This use of the task as a pre- and post-task is modified from that of Swain and Lapkin in two ways. First, the learners in Swain and Lapkins study watched a short (5 minute) video-taped lesson on reflexive verbs. Part of the video showed two students engaged in a jigsaw task. Since this study, like

Rebecca Adams

357

Swain and Lapkin, did not focus solely on the use of reflexive verbs and since these students were accustomed to doing tasks similar to the research task, the video was not considered necessary. Secondly, learners in Swain and Lapkins study were given their original story without correction marks and asked to correct the errors for the post-test. Because the intention of this study was to determine the effects of the different treatments on the learners IL system, it was determined that rewriting the story from the pictures would induce a more valid across group comparison. Pilottesting indicated that this use of the tasks was appropriate for this research. 3 Data collection Five intermediate Spanish classes were involved in the study. The first stage of the study was carried out in the learners regular classes. Learners were divided into pairs by their teachers and one copy of the picture story was given to each pair of learners. Each learner received one-half of the pictures that made up the story; their partner received the other half of the pictures. Participants were instructed to describe their pictures to each other to reconstruct the story. They were instructed not to use dictionaries or pose questions to the researcher or the teacher. The interactions were audio-recorded. After reconstructing the story, the learners were allowed to view all the pictures to ensure comprehension of the story. Each dyad was then instructed to write out the story collaboratively. Their discussion during the collaborative writing was also audiorecorded. During the classroom phase of the study, learners were required to speak only Spanish. The stories produced by the learners were given to either a NS or a near-NS of Spanish for reformulation. They were instructed to preserve the original meaning throughout and the original structure where possible, but to make the story nativelike. The reformulators were specifically told to change both vocabulary and grammar when the original did not reflect NS usage. The original and reformulated stories were then typed so that neither contained correction marks. The treatment phase of the study was conducted outside of class.

358

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

There were three treatment groups in the study: Noticing, Noticing + SR, and Control. As explained previously, learners from each of the five classes were randomly assigned to the different groups in order to minimize possible effects from class membership (class membership was also included in the statistical models to ensure that it did not influence the findings). The Control group (N = 20) did not receive any treatment; they completed only the pre-test and the post-test and received no further input on the study material and nor feedback on their story. This group was included in the study to estimate the improvement based on task repetition. The Noticing group (N = 18) met with the researcher outside of class in a laboratory setting. Each dyad met individually with the researcher. They were given a copy of their original story and of the reformulated version of the story and were instructed to compare the two versions of the story and find all the differences they could, discussing together why they believed the changes had been made. They were asked to verbalize their ideas about the differences between their stories and the reformulated stories in order to give evidence to the researcher of what they had noticed. For the sake of this study, noticing was operationalized as verbally stated awareness of differences between interlanguage and target output; Swain and Lapkin (in press) operationalized noticing in a similar manner. This type of noticing is commonly referred to as noticing the gap, and was the only type of noticing experimentally isolated in this study. Other noticing may have occurred under all experimental conditions; for example, in writing the task, learners may have noticed that they did not know certain key lexical items. Noticing sessions were conducted in Spanish and were audiorecorded. The protocol for this session closely follows that used by Swain and Lapkin (in press). The intent of this procedure is to encourage learners to notice surface level differences between their output and targetlike output, following Schmidts (2001) definition of noticing. This group was included in the study to isolate the effects of noticing on improvement. The final group, the Noticing + SR group (N = 18), also was allowed to compare their original story with the reformulated version, following the same instructions as the Noticing group. Immediately following the noticing session, the participants in this group participated in a stimulated recall session with the

Rebecca Adams

359

researcher. Using the recording of their noticing session as a stimulus, the learners were asked to recall their thoughts at the time they made the comparisons. Learners were allowed to stop the tape whenever they wanted to comment on their thought processes; the researcher stopped the tape for commentary after each discussion of a change and after any unclarified reaction to the reformulations such as laughter or other non-language verbalizations. The stimulated recall sessions were conducted in English and were audio-recorded. This group was included in order to determine the effect of SR and noticing as opposed to noticing alone. The final phase of the study was conducted in class a week after the initial classroom session. Each learner was given a copy of the entire picture sequence from the original task and instructed to write out the story again on their own. It should be noted that this is not an exact task repetition, as the learners performed the task co-operatively for the pre-test and individually for the post-test. However, while the task conditions changed, the task form and objective remained the same. This was considered likely to lead to increased accuracy in the post-test, similar to that found in more orthodox studies of task repetition such as Bygate (1996, 2001). Following the post-task, the learners filled out an exit questionnaire, which asked them to indicate whether they had looked up any unknown forms in dictionaries or grammar texts, and whether they had asked their teacher or other native speakers how to express any of the ideas they had struggled with. The timeline for data collection is explained in Table 2. 4 Analysis and coding The changes the reformulators made on the pre-treatment texts produced by participants from all the groups were tallied. These were analysed to determine the number and type of errors the learners made. Reformulations were coded as directed to lexicon (vocabulary) or grammar; grammatical errors were further coded as errors of verbal morphology, preposition use, gender/agreement, or other. Spelling errors were checked against the tapes of the interactions from writing the story. If the learners used the correct word orally but spelled it incorrectly (or if they used a word that

360

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

Data collection schedule 1 Initial in-class data collection: Learners complete task and write the story, all in Spanish (20 minutes) 23 Reformulation: The stories are reformulated by highly proficient speakers of Spanish 46 Laboratory data collection: Learners participate in noticing session in Spanish (10 minutes) and stimulated recall sessions in English (15 minutes) are held 8 Final in-class data collection: Learners individually write out the picture story in Spanish (20 minutes)

Table 2 Day Activities

was plainly recognizable as the target word and not confused with another Spanish word), the spelling error was counted as an orthographic error and not included for further analysis. If the learners verbally used an incorrect word that was consistent with the spelling, it was counted as a vocabulary error. The reformulations all were directed at non-targetlike forms. Equally grammatical alternatives, for example, were never included. The texts produced by control group pairs were also reformulated. Although the control group never saw the reformulations, they were treated as equivalent for the sake of systematic analysis. The reformulators were not informed which dyads were in each of the groups. In total, there were 746 reformulations. Of these, approximately half (N = 381) were directed at various grammatical structures and half (N = 365) at vocabulary. The proportions of reformulations in the data are displayed in Figure 1. The mean number of errors per dyad was 13.3, with a range of 620. Errors were then traced to the post-test. If a learner used a form in the post-test that had been reformulated from the pre-test, it was coded as either more or less targetlike (forms that remained unchanged were coded as less targetlike). If the learner rephrased the story in order to avoid a problematic form, the form was coded as not attempted. For the sake of this analysis, only non-targetlike forms from the first text were considered. Learner texts typically included some new non-targetlike forms these were not factored into the analysis for any of the groups. The total number of forms

Rebecca Adams

361

Figure 1

Total reformulations

that individual learners attempted (both more and less targetlike) was 445, with a mean of 7.95 per student and a range of 314. The distribution of reformulations in the post-tests is displayed in Figure 2. Grammar and vocabulary errors were fairly equally distributed among the more and less targetlike forms. An independent coder coded 10% of the data, and 95% intercoder reliability with the researchers coding was found. The proportion of more-targetlike forms to attempted forms was calculated for each learner. The scores were categorized into treatment groups (three levels) and into classes (five levels). Class membership was included to determine whether learners from

Figure 2

Incorporation of reformulations in the post-test

362

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

different classes would perform differently under the different experimental conditions. These data were submitted to a two-way ANOVA. The forms that prompted reformulation as well as the reformulations themselves were the topic of the noticing session. As mentioned previously, in these sessions, learners were instructed to discuss the differences they found between their original story and the reformulation and to try to determine why the targeted forms were reformulated. These discussions constituted evidence of noticing. While it is impossible to determine that undiscussed forms were not noticed (Truscott, 1998), reported noticing indicates that they likely were. The forms that learners from the Noticing group and the Noticing + SR group discussed were traced through to the post-test. The proportion of reported noticed forms that were used in a more targetlike manner in the post-test to reported noticed forms overall was calculated for each individual in the groups that participated in noticing. These data were also submitted to a two-way ANOVA. Learners in the Noticing + SR group participated in a stimulated recall about the noticing in addition to the noticing session. The recording of the noticing session served as a stimulus for these sessions. Learners were asked to recall their thoughts when comparing their own output with the reformulations. These sessions were transcribed and analysed. A full discussion of the discussions that arose from the stimulated recall is beyond the scope of this paper, as the focus of the research is impact of the stimulated recall on subsequent output. The stimulated recalls indicated that these learners, like those in Swain and Lapkins study, actively sought to find and understand differences between their own output and the reformulations. The coding system for this research is illustrated in Excerpt 1 below.
Excerpt 1: *Ella prepara por la escuela. She gets ready for school Reformulation: Ella se prepara para la escuela. She gets herself ready for school Original:

Rebecca Adams

363

There are two errors in the original: the reflexive clitic for the verb prepararse to get ready is omitted, and an incorrect preposition por for is used. The first error is an example of one relating to verbal morphology (grammar) and the second as a preposition error (also grammar). In S1s second version of the story, she attempts this form as illustrated by Excerpt 5.
Excerpt 5 Rosa se levanta y empieza a prepararse para ir a la escuela. Rosa gets up and begins to get herself ready to go to school

Both forms are attempted here, and both are used in a more targetlike manner. These forms had been discussed in the noticing session and thus were coded as noticed reformulations. They were also discussed in the stimulated recall. Excerpt 6 is part of the transcript from the stimulated recall discussion of these forms.
Excerpt 6 S1: S2: S1: R: S1: S2: S1: S2: S1: I didnt know that prepara shouldve been reflexive there. Yeah, me neither. And also we didnt know the difference like whether we should use por or para in that case. Did this did the change make sense to you? Or was it confusing? It doesnt make sense to me. I dont know the difference. Between por and para. I dont get it. But the same makes sense for the preparar for me. Right.

The first form, prepararse , was related to previously learned knowledge. The learners recognized the change and remembered the rule the form was based on. The second form, para, was used in a way that was confusing to the learners. They indicated that this use represents new learning from input in the reformulations, for which they could not rely on their current IL system. Note that in this excerpt, as in all of the stimulated recall interviews, the researcher did not supply any rule or explanation of the structures discussed. All of the forms that were reported as noticed in the noticing sessions were discussed in the stimulated recall sessions. The stimulated recall sessions did, however, make it clear that the

364

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

learners noticed differences between their own and the reformulated output, that they used a variety of strategies to process the feedback, and that the stimulated recall sessions themselves qualitatively affected the learners acquisition of targetlike forms from reformulated writing. III Results The results of the analyses are presented in the order of the research questions stated in the first section of this article. 1 Noticing and learning The first research question was as follows: Do learners incorporate noticed TL forms from reformulations in their output? In order to answer this question, the results for the two groups that participated in noticing sessions were grouped together, and the percentage of noticed forms that were incorporated in the posttest output in a more targetlike manner was calculated. When learners in these groups attempted to use a reformulation that they had reported noticing in the post-test, they used it in a more targetlike manner around 61% of the time (standard deviation is 18%). The mean number of attempted reformulations was 8.7 forms, and the mean number of more targetlike reformulations was 5.3. Figure 3 displays the more and less targetlike use of grammar and vocabulary in the post-test.

Figure 3

More and less targetlike usage on the post-test

Rebecca Adams

365

The percentages of incorporated grammatical forms and vocabulary are roughly equivalent, indicating that grammatical and vocabulary reformulations were equally likely to be incorporated in the post-test. The relatively large standard deviation, however, indicates that there is a great deal of variation among the learners in these groups. 2 Differences among groups The second and third research questions dealt with the differences among the three treatment groups: Control, Noticing and Noticing + SR. It is here that the current study departs from Swain and Lapkins study, as their one dyad design did not allow them to separate out the effects of the different treatments. The point of directly comparing the three groups is to estimate how much of the incorporation of targetlike forms was related to task repetition, how much to noticing, and how much to the stimulated recall. The measurement of these effects is cumulative in the design. The Control groups scores represent the effects of task repetition, the Noticing groups scores represent the cumulative effects of task repetition and noticing, and the Noticing + SR groups scores represent the cumulative effects of task repetition, noticing, and stimulated recall. By directly comparing the three groups, it is possible to partial out the impact of each of these factors. The proportion of reformulations that were incorporated in a more targetlike form to the total number of reformulations was calculated for each learner. Descriptive statistics for these values are displayed in Table 3. Residual analysis indicated that there was unequal variance among the groups. Accordingly, the data were transformed using a standard transformation for proportion data ( = 2asiny), as suggested by Neter et al. (1996). These data were submitted to a two-factor ANOVA. As discussed above, two ANOVA models
Table 3 Group Control Noticing Noticing + SR Incorporation of more TL forms Mean 29.23 50.05 70.97 Standard deviation 23.75 22.94 19.34

366

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

were used. The first (reported here) compared all three groups; the second (reported below) compared only the Noticing group with the Noticing + SR group using scores for learning of forms where learners gave overt indications of noticing. It was found that there were significant differences among the three groups (F = 2.84, df = 42, p < 0.05). There were no significant main factor effects for class membership (F = 1.92, df = 4, p > 0.05), and no significant interaction between class membership and group (F = 0.87, df = 6, p > 0.05). There were significant main factor effects for treatment group (F = 4.99, df = 2, p = 0.01), indicating that the different treatments significantly affected learners use of more targetlike forms on the post-test. The different treatment effects are illustrated in Figure 4. Post hoc Tukey analysis was conducted to determine which groups were significantly different. Both the Noticing group and the Noticing + SR group significantly outperformed the Control group. While the Noticing + SR group outperformed the Noticing group, this difference was not significant at the p < 0.05 level. It did, however, approach significance. Table 4 displays the contrasts between group means for the three treatment groups. Because the Control group did not receive a noticing treatment, in analyses that included the Control group any reformulated form was considered a target for reformulation. However, if only the Noticing and Noticing + SR groups are compared, it is possible to more closely examine the effects of noticing. For these two groups, the proportion of more targetlike incorporated reformulations to

Figure 4

Means by treatment group

Rebecca Adams
Table 4 Tukey contrasts among groups Noticing Noticing + SR Noticing 14.09 Control 37.19* 23.10*

367

Note: *p < .05

reformulations that the learners reported noticing were calculated. These data were submitted to a two-way ANOVA (F = 4.38, df = 24, p < 0.05). There was no significant interaction between class membership and treatment group (F = 1.62, df = 3, p > 0.05); main factor effects were found for both treatment group (F = 9.58, df = 1, p < 0.01) and for class membership (F = 5.55, df = 3, p < 0.01). Post hoc Tukey analysis indicated that the Noticing + SR group significantly outperformed the Noticing group. This indicates that stimulated recall increased the chance that learners would incorporate the reformulations into their subsequent output. The differences between the two groups are illustrated in Figure 5. Tukey analysis also indicated that members of one class (whether in the Noticing or the Noticing + SR group) incorporated significantly fewer reformulations in the post-test. Without further investigation of this class, the instructional practices, and individual learner differences, it is difficult to draw inferences from this finding. However, there was no interaction between group and class membership; learners from this class, like those from the other classes, incorporated more reformulations if they participated in both noticing and stimulated recall.

Figure 5

Incorporation of noticed reformulations on the post-test

368

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

4 Discussion The first research question addressed the evidence of noticing, and was adapted from Swain and Lapkins study. Swain and Lapkin (in press) found that learners incorporated the majority of the reformulations in their subsequent output. The results of the current study confirm Swain and Lapkins finding that noticing facilitated by discussion of reformulated writing has an impact on learners subsequent writing. Learners who participated in the noticing treatments incorporated more than 60% of the reformulations in their output. However, there was wide variation in the proportion of forms incorporated. This implies that noticing was much more effective in prompting some learners to incorporate more targetlike forms in their output than others. It is possible that individual learner differences such as motivation (Drnyei, 1998) or aptitude (Skehan, 1998) regulate the effectiveness of noticing in facilitating learning. The finding that 60% of targeted forms were incorporated in a more targetlike manner overall is lower than the percentage found by Swain and Lapkin (in press). Both of their learners incorporated at least 78% of the reformulations in a more targetlike manner. This discrepancy could stem from several different sources. Swain and Lapkins learners were French immersion learners, while the learners in this study were university Spanish learners. Because the learners in the current study had not learned Spanish in an immersion situation, but rather were studying in classes that made use of overt grammatical and vocabulary instruction, they were possibly less accustomed to learning under implicit conditions. Also, Swain and Lapkins two learners had both received the noticing treatment and the stimulated recall treatment, while half of the learners reported here had only received the noticing treatment. However, when learners from the Noticing group are removed from the analysis, the mean percentage of more targetlike incorporation of reformulations increases to only 64%. The difference in findings could also be due to the larger population involved in this study. The proficiency of one of Swain and Lapkins two learners was rated as slightly above average by the teacher (4 on a 7-point scale); the other was rated as highly above average (6/7). This study included a range of learners from several classrooms, not only average and above average learners.

Rebecca Adams

369

The second question dealt with the effects of task repetition. The comparisons among the groups indicate that each of the factors represented task repetition, noticing, and stimulated recall contributed to learning facilitated by reformulated writing. The Control group, whose only treatment was to repeat the task, used approximately 30% of the non-targetlike forms from the pre-test in a more targetlike manner when they attempted to use those forms again in the post-test. Increased accuracy as a result of task repetition is predicted by the task-based language learning literature (Skehan, 1998). The first time the learners participated in the task, they were likely focused on expressing the meaning. The second time they wrote the story, they could focus more on the forms they were using, resulting in more accurate usage. The increased accuracy of the task repetition group was similar to that found in other task-based studies, including Bygate (1996, 2001) and Lynch and McLean (2000, 2001). This interpretation is supported by the stimulated recall data from this study, in which learners often indicated that they immediately recognized their mistake and that they had previously learned the relevant form, but mistakenly had not used it when writing the story. The learners were better able to avoid these errors when the communicative burden was diminished. This finding illustrates the importance of conservative interpretation of treatment effects in studies without comparison groups, as improved accuracy on post-treatment measures are partially attributable to factors other than the treatments. The final research question dealt with the impact of stimulated recall on the findings. The difference between the Noticing + SR group and the Noticing group on the incorporation of noticed reformulations indicates that stimulated recall, in addition to yielding information about the learners mental processing during the noticing treatment, also acts as a learning experience. This finding underscores concerns about the reactivity of introspective research methods (Gass and Mackey, 2000). While such methods allow researchers to investigate learners conscious processing, they can also affect the phenomenon under observation. Methods like stimulated recall that give learners a second opportunity to reflect on the treatment may reinforce previous learning or give learners time to process input that they have not previously

370

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

processed. If such research is conducted before post-treatment measures are completed, they can affect the post-test outcomes, exaggerating the apparent effectiveness of a given treatment. While part of the improved accuracy on post-tests was attributable to task repetition, and part to the stimulated recall, the Noticing group still significantly incorporated reformulations in the post-treatment output even when the effects of task repetition are parcelled out. This lends support to the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt and Frota, 1986; Schmidt, 1990, 2001) indicating that noticing surface differences between IL and NS output can facilitate learning, at least in the short term. Further studies could determine whether this learning persists over longer periods. Finally, it should be remembered that relatively large variation was found for all groups standard deviations of greater than 20 were found for each of the group means. This indicates that none of the three treatments was equally effective for all learners. Most likely, individual factors beyond the scope of this study mitigated the effects of each treatment. Indeed, research on implicit learning has repeatedly indicated that individual factors including motivation, aptitude, learning orientation, working memory, grammatical sensitivity and others impact learning under implicit conditions (see Robinson, 2002, for discussions on these and other individual differences). However, the size of the groups and the balanced design mitigated the effects of within-group variation, equalizing the variation across groups. The equality of variance allows for making inferences about the treatments themselves. It should also be noted that this study did not involve any delayed post-testing, so it is unknown whether the use of more targetlike forms in the post-test was indicative of long-term changes in the learners interlanguage. However, these data overall support the conclusion that participation in a noticing treatment facilitates more learning than task repetition alone, and that participation in noticing and stimulated recall facilitates more learning than noticing alone.

Rebecca Adams 5 Conclusion

371

These findings bring up new questions, some of which have already been discussed. The role of individual factors that might cause the variation found among learners within groups could be investigated. This would help us understand how different learners approach and process the negative and positive feedback provided by reformulations. Further research could also determine whether the benefits of noticing facilitated by reformulated writing persist over time, and whether they extend to contexts beyond that of the task used in this research. This study supports Swain and Lapkins (in press) claim that noticing, facilitated by exposure to reformulated writing, can promote learning of more targetlike forms. The learners in the current study who participated in noticing sessions incorporated significantly more reformulated forms into their IL than those who did not. The results of this study also indicate that the use of stimulated recall influenced the findings in that the extra exposure to the reformulations given to learners during the stimulated recall protocol, as well as the extra time afforded them to process those differences, enhanced the learning from reformulations. These findings imply that reformulated writing might be an effective tool for second language pedagogy, and supports the effectiveness of written output and feedback for noticing and learning forms. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Alison Mackey, Merrill Swain, Lauren RossFeldman and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank Yi-Young Kim, Cathy Stafford and Nina Moreno for assistance in data collection, and Ron Leow, Christina Sanz and the teachers involved in this study for access to classes for data collection. IV References
Allwright, R.L., Woodley, M.-P. and Allwright, J.M. 1988: Investigating reformulation as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic writing. Applied Linguistics 9: 23656. Ashwell, T. 2000: Patterns of teacher response to learner writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: is content feedback followed

372

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing 9: 22757. Brooks, L. and Swain, M. 2001: Collaborative writing and expert feedback: how they support second language learning. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. Bygate, M. 1996: Effects of task repetition: appraising the developing language of learners. In Willis J. and Willis, D., editors, Challenge and change in language teaching, London: Heinemann, 13646. 2001: Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan P., and Swain, M., editors, Researching pedagogic tasks, New York: Longman, 2348. Carson, J. 2001: Second Language Writing and second language acquisition. In Silva, T. and Matsuda, P., editors, On Second Language Writing, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 19199. Cohen, A. 1983: Reformulating second-language compositions: a potential source of input for the learner. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Toronto. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 866.) 25 pp. Conrad, S.M. and Goldstein, L.M. 1999: ESL learner revision after teacher-written comments: text, contents, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing 8: 14779. De Guerrero, M. and Villamil, O. 2001: Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal 84, 5168. Drnyei, Z. 1998: Motivation in foreign and second language learning. Language Teaching 31: 11735. Doughty, C. 2001. Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson P., editor, Cognition and second language instruction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20657. Ellis, N.C. 2001: Memory for language. In Robinson, P., editor, Cognition and second language instruction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3368. Ellis, R. 1994: Factors in the incidental acquisition of second language vocabulary from oral input: a review essay. Applied Language Learning 5: 132. Gass, S. 1997: Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, S. and Mackey, A. 2000: Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hatch, E. 1978: Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In Richards, J., Understanding second and foreign language learning, Rowley,

Rebecca Adams

373

MA: Newbury House, 3470. Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. 1992: Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 1: 25576. 1994: Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing 3: 14163. 1996: Some input on input: two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal 80: 287308. Hyland, F. 1998: The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 25588. 2000: ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research 4: 3354. Izumi, S. and Bigelow, M. 2000: Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 34: 23978. Kassen, M.A. 1988: Native and non-NS teacher response to foreign language learner writing: a study of intermediate level French. Texas papers in foreign language education 1, pp. 115. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345483.) Kepner, C.G. 1991: An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal 75: 30513. Krashen, S.D. 1985: The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman. Lapkin, S. and Swain, M. 2001: Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., Researching pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching, and testing, London: Longman, 99118. Leeman, J. 2003: Records and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 3763. Leow, R. 1997: Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning 47: 467505. Long, M. 1996: The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W.C. and Bhatia, T.K., Handbook of language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 41368. Lynch, T. and MacLean, J. 2000: Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research 4: 22150. 2001. A case of exercising: effect of immediate task repetition on learners performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., editors, Researching pedagogic tasks, New York: Longman, 14162. Mackey, A. 2000: Feedback, noticing and second language development:

374

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

an empirical study of L2 classroom interaction. Paper presented at the British Association for Applied Linguistics, October 2000, Cambridge, UK. Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C. and Winke, P. 2002a: Modified output and working memory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguists (April 610), Salt Lake City, UT. Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. and Tatsumi, T. 2002b: Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Robinson, P. and Skehan, P., Individual differences in L2 Learning, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181210. McLeod, B. and McLaughlin, B. 1986: Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a second language. Language Learning 36: 10923. Mendoca, C.O. and Johnson, K.E. 1994: Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28: 74569. Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J. and Wasserman, W. 1996: Applied linear statistical models. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P.H. and Spada, N. 2001: Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning 51: 71851. Paulus, T.M. 1999: The effect of peer and teacher feedback on learner writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 8: 26589. Philp, J. 2003: Constraints on noticing the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 99126. Pica, T. 1994: Review article: Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning 44: 493527. 1997: Second language research and research relationships: a North American view. Language Teaching Research 1: 4872. Qi, D.S. and Lapkin, S. 2001: Exploring the role of noticing in a threestage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 277303. Reid, J.M. 1982: The process of composition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Robinson, P. 1995: Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning 45: 283331. Robinson, P., editor, 2002: Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2003: Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C. and Long, M.H., editors, Handbook of second language acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell. In press. Schmidt, R. 1990: The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11: 12958. 2001: Attention. In Robinson, P., Cognition and second language instruction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 332.

Rebecca Adams

375

Schmidt, R. and Frota, S.N. 1986: Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R., Talking to learn: conversation in SLA, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 237326. Shi, L. 1998: Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 319345. Skehan, P. 1998: A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. 1985: Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C., Input in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235253. 1993: The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing arent enough. Canadian Modern Language Review 50: 15864. 1995: Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B., Principles and practice in allied linguistics: studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 12544. 1998: Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6481. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1998: Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion learners working together. Modern Language Journal 80: 32037. 2003: Talking it through: two French immersion learners response to reformulated writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics. (Special Issue on The role of interaction in instructed language learning.) In press. Storch, N. 2001: How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary learners composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research 5: 2953. Tomlin, R. and Villa, V. 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. Zhang, S. 1995: Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4: 20922.

376

L2 output, reformulation and noticing

Appendix A: Pictures used in jigsaw task

Reproduced from Swain and Lapkin (in press)