Language Awareness

ISSN: 0965-8416 (Print) 1747-7565 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Talking, tuning in and noticing: exploring the

benefits of output in task-based peer interaction

Jenefer Philp & Noriko Iwashita

To cite this article: Jenefer Philp & Noriko Iwashita (2013) Talking, tuning in and noticing:
exploring the benefits of output in task-based peer interaction, Language Awareness, 22:4,
353-370, DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2012.758128

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.758128

Published online: 01 Feb 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1290

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmla20
Language Awareness, 2013
Vol. 22, No. 4, 353–370, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.758128

Talking, tuning in and noticing: exploring the benefits of output in

task-based peer interaction
Jenefer Philpa∗ and Noriko Iwashitab
a
Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, The University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand; bSchool of Languages & Comparative Cultural Studies, The University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
本研究考察了⽤第⼆语⾔进⾏互动的过程与观察他⼈互动
(Received 29 March 2012; final version received 21 November 2012)的过程是否会对学习者的语⾔意识产⽣不同的影响

This study examines whether the process of interacting in a second language, versus
observing others interact, may differentially affect learner’s awareness of language. This
study involved 26 university students of intermediate-level French. Two experimental
groups, Interactors and Observers, engaged in three sessions of dyadic task-based in-
teraction. The tasks elicited use of noun–adjective agreement and the passé composé.
Although the Interactors provided little feedback to one another, subsequent stimulated
recall interviews suggest differences between groups as to what they were thinking about
during interaction, with Interactors paying more attention to language form. The results
suggest that active language production itself (rather than passive observation) pushes
learners to think about how to express meaning in the target language, and to draw upon
explicit knowledge of the language. The findings contribute to understanding roles of
output in second language learning.
Keywords: interaction; noticing; output; foreign language pedagogy

Introduction
Practice through interaction between learners is a predominant feature of many adult foreign
language classrooms. Oral production practice (referred to here as ‘output practice’, see
Muranoi, 2007) has often been researched with regard to the relative benefits of the feedback
that occurs during learner–learner and native–speaker/learner interaction (e.g. Philp, 2003;
Iwashita, 2003; Fujii & Mackey, 2009; for review see Mackey, 2006). Clear evidence for a
link between interaction and second language (L2) learning is presented by a meta-analysis
by Mackey and Goo (2007). Such research suggests that output is useful for the feedback it
elicits, the resulting opportunities for noticing linguistic difficulties and for reformulation
of imprecise or inaccurate language. While this research suggests the greater effectiveness
of interaction with feedback, what has not been explored in any depth are other possible
benefits of oral production, including the effectiveness of output in and of itself (DeKeyser,
2007). This is important to consider, both for pedagogy and to better understand processes
of interaction-driven L2 learning. Increasingly, in second and foreign language classroom
settings, a large portion of class time is often spent in meaning-based pair and small group
learner–learner interaction (henceforth referred to as peer interaction). Such interaction
may be form-focused, either as a context for repeated use of particular targeted items (e.g.
use of ‘going to’ for discussing plans for the weekend), and/or through the teacher’s explicit
orientation to form (‘do not forget to use going to’). Even so, research suggests that in
these contexts, negotiation for meaning is atypical, feedback is not consistently target-like

∗
Corresponding author. Email: j.philpl@auckland.ac.nz

C 2013 Taylor & Francis
 本研究的重点是输出本身的潜在好处:它调查了⽤第⼆语⾔进⾏互动的过程，
与简单地观察他⼈互动不同，是否有助于在基于任务的互动中注意到⽬标形
式。Schmidt (2001, p. 31)将注意描述为“语⾔建设的第⼀步”，并声称只有学习者注意到
354 J. Philp and N. Iwashita 输⼊的内容才具有学习潜⼒。

and a focus on morphosyntactic problems is rare (Williams, 2001). This study focuses
on the potential benefits of output itself: it investigates whether the process of interacting
in a second language, as distinct from simply observing others interact, may contribute
to noticing of targeted forms in task-based interaction. Schmidt (2001, p. 31) describes
noticing as a ‘first step in language building’, and claims that it is only what the learner
notices about the input that holds potential for learning.

The role of output in second language development

In many L2 classrooms, learners are encouraged to produce the target language through
carrying out tasks that simulate real life situations. Some researchers regard this type of
output practice as non-essential to second language acquisition (Krashen, 1998; VanPatten,
2004). For others, it plays a vital role: for fluency development, noticing and syntactic
processing (de Bot, 1996; Gass, 1997; Skehan, 1998; Swain, 1985, 1995). In part, these
contrasting views reflect a difference in focus on aspects of language acquisition: new
knowledge, restructuring of old knowledge and the proceduralisation of existing knowledge.
There is little disagreement, however, that output is crucial for fluency development.
Successful output can serve to reinforce or consolidate prior knowledge and increase
fluency through more automatic retrieval of forms (de Bot, 1996; McDonough, 2005;
Swain, 1995, 2005).
With regards to developing target-like accuracy in L2 acquisition, Swain (1993) argues
that input alone is insufficient, and output plays a key role: comprehension of a message can
take place with little syntactic analysis of the input, but production forces learners to pay
attention to language form. She claims that for grammatical development, learners need
to be ‘pushed’ into making their output more precise, coherent and appropriate, and this
occurs in the struggle to communicate.
Three functions of output proposed by Swain (1995) in her updated Comprehensible
Output Hypothesis (see also Swain, 1985, 2000) are: noticing (as supported by Swain
& Lapkin, 1995, 1998); hypothesis testing (as supported by Mackey, 2002; Shehadeh,
2003); and metalinguistic awareness (as supported by Adams, 2003; Izumi, 2002; Izumi &
Bigelow, 2000; Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, & Fearnow, 1999; Kowal & Swain, 1994; 1997).
Of relevance to the current study are the functions of noticing and hypothesis testing.
Firstly, with regard to noticing, Swain (1995, pp. 125–126) suggests that ‘in producing
the target language (vocally or subvocally), learners may notice a gap between what they
want to say and what they can say [. . .] the activity of producing the target language may
prompt second language learners to consciously recognize some of their linguistic prob-
lems’. Noticing characteristics of language and grammatical anomalies in the learner’s own
production is significant to second language development; it is a first step towards restruc-
turing and refining existing second language knowledge (Gass, 2003; Gass & Varonis,
1994; Long, 1996). While the selective attention of the learner is fundamentally important
in the connection between conversational interaction and language acquisition (Ellis, 1991;
Gass & Varonis, 1994; Long, 1996; Schmidt, 2001; Schmidt & Frota, 1986), few studies
have directly investigated it. It is not clear, for instance, to what extent learners notice
anomalies in their language production as a consequence of trying to formulate meaning,
nor whether development in all aspects of language, including morphology, syntax and
vocabulary, is equally benefited by interaction. There is a paucity of work, both experi-
mental and classroom-based, that is directly related to learners’ noticing of forms in oral
interaction (for exceptions see Philp, 2003; Mackey, McDonough, Fujii, & Tatsumi, 2001;
 Language Awareness 355

Mackey, Philp, Fujii, Egi, & Tatsumi, 2002), particularly in instructional settings. This is
one focus of this paper.
Related to noticing is the function of hypothesis testing. In the process of communicating
with others, learners may try out new forms and experiment with language. Problems
learners experience in communicating clearly and the feedback they receive at this time may
help them attend to inconsistencies between their interlanguage knowledge or production
and the target language form. Swain (1998) suggests that the modifications learners make as
they ‘stretch their interlanguage to meet communicative needs’, may ‘represent the leading
edge of a learner’s interlanguage’ (p. 79). Much of the research in this area has focused
on learners’ modified output in response to clarification requests, confirmation checks and
other kinds of feedback from the interlocutor, but Swain (1995, p. 126) also suggests that
the process of talking itself may prompt noticing and hypothesis testing, and may enable
learners ‘to control and internalize linguistic knowledge’. Thus, Gass (1997, p. 27) describes
output not simply as an outcome of learning but as ‘an active part of the entire learning
process’. This may be an especially important aspect of peer interaction where feedback
and modified output are not observed as frequently as in learner–native speaker interaction.

Output practice in peer interaction

In foreign language settings, exposure to the target language is limited, and of this time
much of it is spent with other learners. Recently, researchers have considered the charac-
teristics of peer interaction and potential benefits for L2 learning. This includes research
conducted in laboratory and classroom contexts that has compared the quality and quantity
of interaction in terms of feedback, modified output and various negotiation moves when
learners are paired with a native speaker and when they are paired with another learner
(e.g. Garcia-Mayo & Pica, 2000; Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003; Pica, Lincoln-Porter,
Paninos, & Linnell, 1996; Sato & Lyster, 2007; Shehadeh, 2002; Varonis & Gass, 1985).
Descriptive studies provide a picture of the benefits and shortcomings of peer interaction.
For example, Williams (1999, 2001) examined the production of eight classroom EFL
learners at four levels of proficiency in the USA to examine the extent to which learners can
and do spontaneously attend to form in their interaction with other learners. Results show
that low-proficiency learners rarely engaged in form-focused interaction. Williams suggests
that the degree and type of learner-generated attention to form is related to proficiency level
and the nature of the activity in which the learners are engaged. Similarly, in a study of
peer interaction over four months in 10 French and Italian foreign language classes in
primary and high schools, Tognini, Philp, and Oliver (2010) found variation in attention to
form according to the purpose of the activity and group/pair dynamics. Collaborative tasks
involving co-construction resulted in greater L2 use and focus on form.
Taken together, this research indicates that peer interactions rarely offer blanket benefits
(e.g. Pica et al., 1996; Williams, 1999, 2001). This is especially true when we consider the
types of output practice used in classrooms. As Williams showed in her analysis of classroom
interaction, although the classes were communicatively oriented and many of the tasks were
designed to encourage learners to focus on grammatical form, it was often the case that
vocabulary was the driving force for interactions. Even in experimental studies, researchers
report that it is very difficult to develop communicative tasks that promote pushed output
(e.g. Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). This is due in part to learners’
limited control over the linguistic demands of the task (Shehadeh, 2002). Although there
have been some studies investigating the effect of ‘pushed output’ in oral interaction on
subsequent language development (e.g. de la Fuente, 2002; Ellis & He, 1999; Fujii &
356 J. Philp and N. Iwashita

Mackey, 2009; Linnell, 1995; McDonough, 2004, 2005; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Ogino,
2008; Takashima & Ellis, 1999; Van den Branden, 1997), most of these involve native
speaker interlocutors. Very few focus uniquely on peer interaction. An exception is Adams’
(2007) study of the effectiveness of feedback in peer interaction among 25 ESL learners
at an adult community education centre in the USA. Following three sessions of peer
interaction over three weeks, participants took individual tailor-made post-tests that were
based on the feedback episodes that had arisen during the interactions. Results showed
improvement in accuracy of the target forms, but learning rates differed according to the
linguistic targets.

Learner role in interactions – Observers versus Interactors

One issue that arises from pair and group work interaction among learners concerns differ-
ences in levels of participation. There is some evidence (e.g. Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki,
1994; Mackey, 1999; McDonough, 2004; Seliger, 1983) that the nature of the learner’s
participation in interaction impacts the potential benefits. For example, Mackey’s (1999)
experimental study of interaction between native speakers and L2 learners included a group
of Observers who watched the interaction, but did not actively participate. Interestingly, four
of seven Observers did make gains in developmental stage increase for question forms, sug-
gesting some potential for observation alone, with the caveat that this study involved native
speakers providing feedback to learners. Even so, fewer Observers than Interactors made
gains, and, in terms of increased production of more advanced forms, Observers unlike Inter-
actors, showed little change, indicating an advantage for active production. Further research
on differences between observing versus interacting would help clarify the potential of learn-
ing through interaction with others. To date, just a handful of studies have considered effects
of participation with regard to peer interaction, without the benefit of native speaker input.
In an early study, Seliger (1983), comparing the rate of development between ‘high
input generators’ and ‘low input generators’, found that learners who maintained high
levels of interaction in the target language (whether teacher–learner or learner–learner)
progressed at a faster rate than learners who interacted little in the classroom. He suggests
that this is because the former, through interaction, are able to benefit from input that is
contingent with their own needs as learners, compared to those who are more passive in
their learning. In a study of peer interaction in a Thai EFL-context, McDonough (2004)
investigated the L2 learning outcomes of pair and group work form-focused interaction.
She compared performance on post-tests of learners’ production of targeted forms (real
and unreal conditionals), according to level of participation. The eight interactors who
had shown greater participation in feedback and modified output episodes demonstrated
greater improvement in post-tests compared to the low-participation learners, suggesting
benefits for participation. This is a complex issue, as level of participation may result
from a host of factors, including willingness to communicate (Cao, 2009; Cao & Philp,
2006); proficiency level (Iwashita, 2001; Watanabe & Swain, 2007; Williams, 2001); and
relationships between partners (Storch, 2002; Tognini et al., 2010). Clearly, further research
in these areas is important.

Research questions
This study focuses on the relationship between learners’ participation in peer interaction and
their noticing of form. It compares two groups of learners: Interactors, who fully participate
in dyadic task-based interaction, and Observers, who watch the interaction between a pair
of learners. The following research questions are addressed:
 Language Awareness 357

(1) What do (a) Interactors and (b) Observers notice during task-based peer interaction?
(2) Is there a relationship between type of participation and noticing during interaction?

Methodology
Participants
A subset (n = 26) of the data collected from 56 participants in a larger study were analysed
for the current study. All learners were enrolled in second and third year core courses in
French at a university in New Zealand (n = 16) or Australia (n = 10). Some had studied
French at secondary school and others started at university. All possessed knowledge of
the target structures but were not fluent in production. Their proficiency is considered
as intermediate. Equivalence of participants’ implicit and explicit knowledge of target
structures across the two groups and between the two institutions was established through
comparison of pre-test scores on an oral production task, an untimed grammatical judgement
task and an elicited imitation task.

Design1
The 26 participants were placed in one of two groups: Interactors (n = 17) and Observers
(n = 9). Assignment was initially random and groups included participants from both
universities, with some adjustment based on participants’ availability for the set session
times. Uneven group numbers occurred due to attrition, and additional participants who,
due to late start dates, were assigned to the Interactors group. All participants completed
a pretest, adapted from Erlam and Loewen (2009), comprising an untimed grammaticality
judgement test (GJT), elicited imitation task (EI) and a spontaneous production task to
ensure that the participants’ implicit and explicit knowledge of L2 target structures across
the groups was equivalent. No significant difference in the test scores between Interactors
and Observers was found (GJT être p = .221, adjective p = .414; EI task être p = .363,
adjective p = .749). Based on the design used by Mackey (1999) and Mackey, Gass,
and McDonough (2000; see also Mackey, 2006), participants attended three treatment
sessions over two weeks and an individual stimulated recall session with the researcher,
and completed a final exit questionnaire and biodata/self-assessment questionnaire.

Treatment
Treatment entailed three sessions of 30-minute duration each, with two communicative
tasks per session. These tasks were designed to elicit the production of the targeted forms
and to encourage a high degree of oral interaction between participants and the need for
mutual comprehension. The two treatment groups, Interactors and Observers, used the same
task materials but were distinguished in the role each played.

Interactors
The 17 participants in the Interactors group carried out six tasks over three days in pairs.2
They always worked with the same partner, with some exceptions due to no shows. The final
session was videotaped. All sessions were audio-recorded. Within the 24 hours following
the final treatment session, these participants were individually interviewed by the first
author or a French-speaking research assistant using stimulated recall.
358 J. Philp and N. Iwashita

Observers
The nine participants in the Observers group worked individually on computers and ob-
served the same tasks being completed by a pair of learners. Over three days, they viewed
interaction between two learners carrying out each of the five tasks used by the Interactors
group. Observers were instructed simply to watch the DVD and complete a visual compre-
hension task (e.g. ‘tick the pictures that match the story these two students tell’). The pair
who appeared on the DVD was from the same population of students: they were in their early
20s, a female and a male, the former had higher proficiency than the latter, and they were
representative of the range of proficiency and experience found among the participants. The
pair did not know each other but were animated in their interaction, and Observers later
commented that they seemed to be enjoying themselves. Within the 24 hours following the
final treatment session, participants were individually interviewed by the first author or a
French-speaking research assistant using stimulated recall.

Measures of noticing
Evidence of noticing came from retrospective reports through stimulated recall interviews
and exit questionnaires. Noticing was operationalised as ‘learner’s articulation of response
to the input, or to their own output, indicative of a perception of form, without distinguishing
the degree of understanding involved’ (adapted from Mackey et al., 2001, p. 188).

Stimulated recall
One day after the final treatment session, participants individually watched DVDs of the
interaction they had engaged in (Interactors) or watched (Observers) in the final session.
The interviewer paused the recording at points in which either partner modified output or
demonstrated any difficulty with expressing themselves. The participant could also choose
to pause the DVD at any time. Once the DVD was paused, the interviewee was then asked to
verbalise what he or she was thinking at the time of the interaction (see Mackey, 2002). The
interview sessions lasted 20–30 minutes and were recorded, transcribed and later coded by
the two authors and a research assistant.

Linguistic forms
Two forms were selected as target structures: noun–adjective agreement and choice of
auxiliary for the passé composé (past tense). In French, adjectives agree in gender with the
noun, as illustrated in Figure 1, where the adjective ‘white’ is expressed either as ‘blanche’
(feminine) or ‘blanc’ (masculine) depending on the gender of the noun.
The simple past tense or ‘passé composé’ in French is formed with an auxiliary verb
and a main verb in the past participle form. The choice of the auxiliary depends on the
verb: reflexive verbs and a closed set of intransitive verbs associated with motion take être,

Example une chemise blanche un chapeau blanc

Article (fem) noun (fem) adjective (fem) Article (masc) noun (masc) adjective(masc)

Gloss a white shirt a white hat

Figure 1. Targeted form: noun–adjective agreement.

 Language Awareness 359

Example Jo est allé au café Il a acheté un billet

Noun AUX (être 3sgS) Verb (past Pronoun AUX (avoir 3sgS) Verb (past
participle) PP participle) OBJ

Gloss Jo went to the cafe He bought a ticket

Figure 2. Targeted form: use of auxiliary with passé composé (simple past).

while all other verbs are preceded by the auxiliary avoir. The auxiliary is marked for person
and number. This is illustrated in Figure 2. In this study, the target form was specifically
the selection of the correct auxiliary, not the correct form of the past participle of the verb,
which can be irregular and poses another problem for learners.
These were both chosen as target structures because the participants already had prior
instruction on these forms. Additionally, they were relatively high-frequency forms in the
input and ones they often used, albeit not in a target-like fashion. These are both forms
students find difficulty with: for both there is a simple statable rule, yet each lacks clear
perceptual salience and each has low communicative value (for further discussion, see
Erlam & Loewen, 2009).

Self-report of language proficiency

All participants, as they were enrolled in courses in second and third year, were within an
intermediate range in French; however, this represented a wide range of experience and
proficiency in the target language. The oral production task and a self-assessment report
(adapted from Long, 2005) were used to identify high- and low-proficiency learners within
the spectrum.

Data analysis
Coding of production data in treatment sessions
Audio-recorded data of the Interactor’s three treatment sessions were transcribed by two
research assistants, and double coded for (1) production of target-like and non-target like
use of être/avoir in past tense, and adjective agreement; (2) provision of corrective feedback
on non-target production of these forms; and (3) modified output in response to corrective
feedback. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) of non-target like production of the target structures
for 66% of the data was 100%. IRR of all corrective feedback and modified output was
initially 92.5% and 96.3%, respectively. Any discrepancies were independently coded by a
third rater. Corrective feedback was operationalised as any response to a non-target like ut-
terance that indicates explicitly or implicitly that the utterance needs to be modified in some
way in order to communicate coherently or in a more target-like way. This includes explicit
correction, recasts, prompts and indicators of misunderstanding or non-comprehension.
Modified output was operationalised as modification of the original trigger utterance by
the speaker, in response to corrective feedback by the interlocutor in the preceding turn.
On the pre-test results, IRR by two scorers on the EIT and GJT was 100% and 97.75%,
respectively.
360 J. Philp and N. Iwashita

Coding of stimulated recall data

Audio-recorded stimulated recall data were transcribed and read by the two researchers
and an assistant in order to identify salient categories of central focus. Categories and
examples appear in Figure 3 in the results section. In order to compare the frequency of
comment on each category across the two experimental groups, a non-parametric statistic
(Mann-Whitney U test) was performed and effect size was also calculated. To ensure the
reliability of coding, the two researchers coded all data and initial IRR was 81% for 10 of
26 transcripts. Coding was then compared and any discrepancies discussed and resolved.

Analysis
In order to describe the characteristics of the interaction we calculated the mean and
range of production of target-like and non-target like use of the two target structures, and
identified any instances of corrective feedback on non-target production of the two forms
and modified output in response to the corrective feedback. To examine a relationship
between participation in interaction and noticing of form (Research Questions 1 & 2), a
comparison was made between the results of the noticing measures explained above for the
two treatment groups.

Results
We first describe the characteristics of the interaction in terms of accuracy in production
of target structures, and incidence of feedback and modified output. Descriptive statistics
established learners’ use of the target structures to complete the tasks, as seen in Table 1.
In spite of wide ranges in use, accuracy at the 80% level was true of 75% of learners for
être/avoir and 79% for adjective agreement. In the DVD watched by the Observers group,
the partners showed a wider range of accuracy levels: Partner 1 correctly used the être/avoir
for past tense 68 times, with only two non-target like forms, and adjective agreement
90 times correctly, with only three non-target like forms (over 95% accuracy); Partner 2,
however, represented the other extreme of the range; he produced être/avoir correctly just
twice, but 19 times in a non-target like form (9.5% accuracy), and adjective agreement
17 times correctly, with eight non-target like forms (68% accuracy).
As the focus of this study was on effects of output, rather than feedback, all pair work
interaction was first coded for any incidence of feedback and modified output. As a result,
one pair was excluded from the analysis due to higher provision of feedback (n = 8)
on the target structures. The analysis is thus based on 12 pairs (n = 17) of Interactors.
Over the three sessions of task-based interaction, this group rarely provided one another
with corrective feedback in response to non-target like production of the target structures,
ranging from no feedback to three instances. On average, less than a quarter of production
of the target structures was non-target like.

Table 1. Production of target forms during treatment sessions (interactors).

Être/Avoir Adj
Interactors (n = 17) TL nTL %TL TL nTL %TL

Range 21–80 0–14 64.9–100 19–71 0–14 76.7–100

Mean 43.47 5.89 86.42 39.94 6.41 85.94

Note: TL, target-like; nTL, non-target like.

 Language Awareness 361

Focus category Description Example

Noun-adjective Focus on gender agreement of Cos she’s a girl, I forgot to say heureuse
the adjective with the noun instead of heureux [happy] for a boy. So
agreement
I corrected myself then.

Passé composé Focus on selection of auxiliary I think I’m hesitating there because I
for passé composé forget if it’s apporter or if I use être or
– être/avoir
avoir.

Expression Concern over how to express He’s running underground is what I was
intended meaning in French saying. I was just thinking of the way I
could describe it. (Interactor)

Vocabulary Focus on a particular vocabulary I remember when she said frisé [curly]
item (comprehension or I was thinking oh that’s the word cos I’d
production) forgotten it (Observer)

Empathy Express empathy for partner’s I think it was great how she was trying to
attempts to use French help him explain what he was saying.
Cos he was trying his best to explain
what he meant. And then she gave him
the word to help him fill in the sentence.
It was really nice. (Observer)

Comprehension Focus on understanding what is Yeah I was a little bit confused XX like
being said did he get out or did he not? (Interactor)

Grammar Focus on any grammatical item Sometimes when he’s speaking I’m often
other than the target feature correcting him in my head. (Observer)

I remember thinking it’s il y’avait [there

was] but she said il y’aura [there will be]
or something like that. (Interactor)

Focus on other aspects of the And then I looked for whoever’s wearing
Other
interaction, including: a dress. (Task strategy)
Phonology, affect, task strategy,
non-relevant comment

Figure 3. Categories and examples from learner reports during stimulated recall.
362 J. Philp and N. Iwashita

A mean percentage of 4.68% of all non-target like use of the target structures received
feedback over three sessions. Modified output in response to feedback was highly variable
among the Interactor pairs: of a total of 14 feedback episodes, three resulted in correct
modified output. The Observers group watching the DVD saw a higher incidence of feed-
back – a total of six instances in response to 24 non-target like uses (25% of non-target like
use received feedback). In only one instance was feedback followed by modified output.

Noticing during interaction (Research Question 1)

The stimulated recall data was used to investigate the first research question, and was
based on identification of common categories in participants’ reports. These categories are
presented, with examples, in Figure 3. As the focus of this study was output and L2 learning,
comments that were related to the task itself, or to extraneous factors such as the clothing
a partner was wearing, were classed as ‘Other’. The total numbers of comments made on
the eight categories vary ranging from 5 to 39.

Relationship between type of participation and noticing during interaction

(Research Question 2)
We compared the frequency of the comments by Interactors and Observers for each category.
The median of the frequency of each category in each group and the results of Mann-
Whitney test are summarised in Table 2.
In general, more instances of noticing were observed in the Interactor’s stimulated recall
data than in Observers’. In both Observers and Interactors groups, the largest number of
comments was made on ‘Other’ (i.e. comments such as task strategy, pronunciation, partic-
ipants’ feelings). Interactors reported on the use of the two target structures more frequently
than Observers as shown in the range of the two structures and the median scores. Of the two
target structures, more instances of noticing were observed in passé composé–être/avoir
than noun–adjective agreement. A third of Interactors (i.e. five) commented on ‘Passé
composé–être/avoir’ more than twice in their stimulated recall reports. On noun–adjective
agreement, one person commented five times, but the majority of Interactors reported once
or not at all. Similarly, more Interactors reported on ‘Expression’ and ‘Vocabulary’ in the
interactions than Observers, as the median and range of the frequency of the comments

Table 2. Comparison of stimulated recall data of Interactors and Observers.

Median Range
Focus U p Effect size (r) Interactors Observers Interactors Observers

Noun–adjective 63.5 .22 –.24 0 0 0–5 0–1

agreement
Passé composé – 43 .02 –.45 1 0 0–4 0–1
être/avoir
Expression 21.5 .01 –.63 5 1 1–10 0–4
Vocabulary 33.5 .01 –.51 3 1 2–8 0–7
Empathy 48 .03 –.42 0 1 0–1 0–3
Comprehension 72.5 .60 –.10 3 3 0–7 0–10
Grammar 66 .37 –.17 1 1 0–8 0–7
Other 57 .20 –.26 4 7 1–17 0–17
 Language Awareness 363

show. Interestingly, more comments on ‘Empathy’ (e.g. ‘he sounded struggling to get his
message across’) were provided by Observers than Interactors.
The results of a Mann-Whitney U test show that differences in the frequency of the com-
ments between Interactors and Observers groups were found in ‘Passé composé–être/avoir’,
‘Expression’, ‘Vocabulary’ and ‘Empathy’ categories. Medium effect sizes were found for
significant differences in the ‘Passé composé–être/avoir’ and ‘Empathy’ categories and
large effect sizes for ‘Expression’ and ‘Vocabulary’ categories.
In summary, dyadic task-based interaction was characterised by minimal feedback
on the target structures, although participants provided the target with 65–100% accu-
racy range. On average, a quarter of production of target structures during the interaction
was non-target like. There were significant differences, with medium to high effect sizes,
between Interactors and Observers in what they reported noticing at the time of the inter-
action. While Interactors commented more about the target structure, other grammatical
items, vocabulary and expression, Observers tended to report more about comprehension,
participants’ feelings and task strategies. These findings will be further discussed in the
next section.

Discussion
In this study, we examined whether producing language fosters greater noticing of lan-
guage form or greater orientation to form than just listening to others interacting. Clear
differences were found between the two groups in what they reported thinking about during
the interaction. Consistent with results of classroom-based research on peer interaction
(e.g. Williams, 1999, 2001) partners rarely provided one another with corrective feedback
of the target form. Modification of output was highly variable. At times, feedback led to
target-like use, as seen in Example 1, yet frequently, it was ignored.

Example 1

S: Le premier homme est . . . c’est impoli mais The first man is . . . its rude but he is fat [feminine
il est grosse form of adjective – non TL use]
C: Il est gros? He is fat? [noun–adjective agreement TL use]
S : Il est gros, oui, et il porte les lunettes He is fat, yes and he is wearing glasses [TL use]

Peer interaction was thus characterised by practice of the target structures, with
65–100% accuracy but little feedback. For this reason, noticing of language form may
be attributed to learner production, and need to communicate, rather than to feedback.
Further, all learners demonstrated some competence in use of the target structures, thus, for
the most part, noticing concerned problems likely to lead to restructuring of old knowledge
and the proceduralisation of existing knowledge, rather than new forms (with the exception
of some lexical items, see Example 2).
The research questions explored the relationship between type of participation and
noticing during interaction. The results point to a difference between the Observers and
the Interactors, as predicted by Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis. Swain’s work
suggests that it is by having to grapple with actually producing the language for meaningful
purposes that learners engage with and notice interlanguage problems: vocabulary they
lack, linguistics forms they are unsure of, ways of saying something they are unsure of
and to venture possible solutions. This was reflected in the types of comments made by
Interactors compared to those by Observers. Interactors were more likely to report that they
364 J. Philp and N. Iwashita

were thinking about how to express their intended meaning in French, or to report a focus
on a particular vocabulary item, as seen in Example 2 and 3 respectively.

Example 2

a. (Expression, Interactor)
Um oh yeah I remember at that point I was I was trying to ah um I was trying to think of a way that
to say that um he he came up through he came up through the ground through a kind of like a
underground passage
b. (Expression, Observer)
So I’m, like, oh, yeah, that makes sense – that was a good way to describe it.

Example 3

a. (Vocabulary, Interactor)
I can tell you what I was thinking there. I was very impressed that he knew the word s’échapper [to
escape] which I didn’t know
b. (Vocabulary, Observer)
I think I remember when she said frisé [curly] I was thinking oh that’s the word cos I’d forgotten it

Interactors reported more instances of noting the target form être/avoir with passé
composé than Observers. In the following example, the Interactor knows what she wants to
say and recognises a problem when she comes to say it: the choice of auxiliary. Her use of
metalinguistic language to report this difficulty reflects the level of explicit knowledge she
already has. This supports another function of pushed output: practice steadily promotes
procedural knowledge via declarative knowledge (Anderson, 1983; de Bot, 1996; Muranoi,
2007). Paying attention to form is an integral part of this process.

Example 4 (Auxiliary choice with past tense, Interactor)

I wanted to say (. . .) everyone panicked and they all fell (. . .) I knew that I had to use um avoir with
the participe passé and um être and the participe passé so I kinda got them mixed around
especially because um sont and ont sounded um s . . . kind of have the same sound so I kind of got
the two verbs mixed up I think it worked out in the end though

This suggests that having to actually produce the language lead speakers to think about
form-meaning connections, to a greater extent than Observers. The Observers tended to
report aspects of the task itself such as strategies in listening for particular information, or
to report comprehension difficulties. Here, it is evident that the participants’ differing roles
and goals in doing the tasks was a factor in orienting their attention to form.
Reports of noticing noun–adjective agreement were rare among all participants. This
finding was unsurprising given the low aural saliency and low communicative value of this
form. As other studies suggest, the benefits of interaction may apply to some forms and not
others (Williams, 2001).
Another aspect of interaction is the input of the partner. Some learners commented
that the interlocutor provided ways of saying things they themselves were struggling with.
Paying attention to form-meaning relationships may result from problems engendered by
the pressure to communicate (Bygate & Samuda, 2009; Gass, 2003). That is, the need to
express themselves coherently may help learners to focus not only on what they themselves
 Language Awareness 365

are saying but also on what their interlocutor is saying, as they search for how to articulate
meanings through the target language. This is reflected in Example 5.

Example 5 (Interactor)

When Linda is speaking I feel I understand more than I can say it myself cos I can understand what
she’s saying and then I’m like ohhhh those are the words or something, you know?

This was not limited to Interactors: some Observers also commented that they learnt
how to say something by listening to others, as seen in Example 6.

Example 6 (Observer)

When she is speaking I’m often trying to um help myself grammatically. Because she seems to
articulate, or structure her phrases really well. So I’m often listening to her to get, to try and
improve my French.

For some Observers, not having the pressure to communicate gave them time to listen
to their interlocutor more closely and to learn from their input. Without the pressure to
communicate, however, Observers needed to have some other motivation to pay attention to
form. In the case of Sara, in Example 6, she approached the tasks with the goal of improving
her French. Others simply watched the pair interaction with the purpose of identifying visual
clues that matched the conversation, as required by the task. The majority did not report
attention to expression or to grammatical forms during stimulated recall sessions.
An unexpected finding was that Observers reported more empathetic comments than
Interactors, expressing sympathy for the person they watched struggle through a mangled
sentence in French, and admiration for the patience of the interlocutor. Again, this sug-
gests that the orientation of the two groups differs because of their type of participation.
Post-hoc analysis also found that participants who had scored lower in self-reported pro-
ficiency reported more comments expressing empathy than those with high self-reported
proficiency.
Finally, with regard to general awareness of the target structures during their participa-
tion in the study, exit questionnaire results found that over half of students, irrespective of
group, reported noticing the targeted forms after or during their participation. Consistent
with the findings of the stimulated recall interviews, reported noticing of être/avoir with
passé composé was higher than that of noun–adjective agreement. This finding may be
explained by the non-saliency of noun–adjective agreement, and low communicative load.
That learners did not report noticing this form during the interaction is also consistent with
the difficulty learners find in acquiring gender agreement. While the distinction between
use of être and avoir is aurally non-salient in the third person singular form (the most
commonly used form elicited by the tasks), the use of the auxiliary is a requirement of
expressing passé composé. In contrast, adjectives still carry their meaning regardless of
gender marking.
It is also noteworthy that participants were generally positive about their involvement
in the study, reporting that they felt they learnt a lot of vocabulary, identified areas of weak-
ness and gained confidence in using French. This suggests motivation in carrying out the
tasks.
366 J. Philp and N. Iwashita

Conclusions
This study has focused on the outcomes of output practice during peer interaction. While
previous research demonstrates that consistent interactional feedback coupled with output
practice would be more effective than output alone (e.g. Mackey, 2006), the findings provide
some evidence that practising use of language during peer interaction, even when feedback
is rare, can benefit the learning process. Specifically, those who actively participate through
talking rather than observing are more likely to pay attention to form-meaning connections
as they grapple with how to express themselves in a coherent way. However, the results of
this study support previous findings that some forms are more salient during interaction
than others, and that, during peer interaction, vocabulary is a prime concern for learners
(Williams, 2001). What the data suggest is that language production pushes learners to
think about how to express ideas in the L2, and draw on explicit knowledge to monitor their
speech. In this way, a primary goal of peer interaction may be to provide opportunities for
trying out target language presented in the classroom, in order to consolidate communicative
use of forms learners have already developed some knowledge of, but lack fluency of use.
Contemporary language teaching practice emphasises meaningful communication and
grammatical accuracy and encourages learning through communicative pair and group
work activities in the classroom. Outcomes of the current study, which focused on inter-
action between learners (rather than between the teacher and the class), are relevant to
this pedagogic approach and have implications for effective use of pair and group work.
Firstly, it suggests that one function of peer interaction can be to encourage noticing of
form-meaning connections as learners struggle with language. It follows that peer talk may
be most beneficial when all participants are actively involved, and when production oppor-
tunities push learners to communicate clearly. Secondly, the potential for experimentation
and rehearsal is important. This has implications for task design: tasks for this purpose
should elicit repeated use of target forms, and provide a context for learners to actively try
out language and modify attempts.

Limitations and future research

There are a number of limitations of this study: due to attrition, the Observer group was
less than half that of the Interactors. A larger sample size may have found greater variation
between Observers in terms of benefits of listening. Future research could consider the
extent to which learning style may account for differences, with some learners finding that
without the pressure to speak they are better able to learn vicariously when listening to
others. In the stimulated recall interviews some participants talked more than others, yet
more instances of reports of noticing does not necessarily mean that more was noticed.
To assess noticing, a variety of methods is preferable, for example the use of ‘learning
journals’ as well as stimulated recall (e.g. Fujii & Mackey, 2009; Mackey et al., 2002).
The two variables in this study, output and noticing, each warrant further teasing out.
Firstly, with regards to output, the inclusion of two groups of interactors, with a distinction
between interaction with feedback and interaction without feedback, would further enable
exploration of the extent to which output alone might promote noticing, versus interaction
with corrective feedback.
Secondly, although this study did find a relationship between participation and noticing,
it is important to recognise the complex nature of noticing: a number of variables are
likely to have mediated noticing for learners. Proficiency is one factor that has been
highlighted in other research, and it may have contributed to what learners paid attention
to (Philp, 2003; Iwashita, 2001). Further research in this area and, more specifically,
 Language Awareness 367

on learners’ prior knowledge of the target structure would be valuable. Individual

differences in aptitude and working memory is another factor (e.g. Fujii, 2005; Mackey,
Adams, Stafford, & Winke, 2010). The relationship between working memory and the
benefits of pushed output practice is an avenue for further investigation. Finally, individual
differences between learners in how they approached the tasks, and what they reported
in stimulated recall interviews, suggests that the relationship between learning style
preferences (learning through observation vs. learning by doing) and the benefits of
interaction for L2 development is another area of interest.
In this study, task-based interaction elicited recurring use of target forms. Working
with peers on such tasks, learners have the opportunity for repeated output practice on
forms elicited by tasks. In addition to orienting learners’ attention to linguistic form, such
interaction may give them increased confidence in using the forms and improved accuracy as
they proceduralise declarative knowledge of the forms. This process seemed more evident
among those who produced language and interacted with their peers than those whose
sole role was to observe and understand. The study reported here focused on the noticing
function of output and suggested a greater benefit for active interactors. Further research
should continue to explore relationships between output, noticing and, importantly, L2
development.

Notes
1. The data reported for this study is a subset of a larger study, which involved 56 participants who
undertook pre- and post-tests in addition to treatment sessions. In the larger study, participants
were assigned to one of three groups: two experimental groups and the control group. Only data
relevant to the study reported here are included in the description.
2. An 18th Interactor participated in pair work, but missed the stimulated recall session and was
therefore subsequently excluded from the analysis.

Notes on contributors
Jenefer Philp is a Lecturer at Lancaster University and an honorary Research Associate at the
University of Auckland. The focus of her current research is on the role of interaction in second
language development and includes the three main areas of interest: peer interaction among children
and adults in the language classroom, individual difference factors and corrective feedback in the
language classroom.
Noriko Iwashita is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the University of Queensland. Her
research interests include classroom interaction in L2 development, interfaces of language assessment
and SLA, and cross-linguistic investigation of four major language traits. Her work has appeared
in Language Testing, Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, and Studies in Second Language
Acquisition.

References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language
Teaching Research, 7, 347–376.
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical
studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field,
purpose and involvement within the interaction approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.),
Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA: Research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 90–116).
New York: Routledge.
368 J. Philp and N. Iwashita

Cao, Y. 2009. Understanding the notion of interdependence, and the dynamics of willingness to
communicate (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: a comparison of
behaviour in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493.
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–555.
DeKeyser, R.M. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and
cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
de la Fuente, M.J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input
and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 81–112.
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language
acquisition in the second/foreign language classroom (pp. 179–114). Singapore: SEAMEO Re-
gional Language Centre.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of
word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acqui-
sition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2009). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The
Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 66, 877–905.
Fujii, A. (2005). Individual differences in task performance: Aptitude profiles, orientation to form,
and second language production in the EFL classroom. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Georgetown University.
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner–learner interactions in a task-based
EFL classroom. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47,
267–301.
Garcia-Mayo, M.D.P., & Pica, T. (2000). L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are
learning needs addressed? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 35–58.
Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gass, S.M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S.M., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In
S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on corrective feedback and modified output in
non-native–non-native interaction. System, 29, 267–287.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Positive and negative input in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects
of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
21, 421–452.
Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?
TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’
language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote
metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.),
Immersion education: International perspectives (chap. 14). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26, 175–182.
Linnell, J. (1995). Can negotiation provide a context for learning syntax in a second language?
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 11, 83–103.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C.
Ritchie (Ed.), Handbook of language acquisition: Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468).
New York: Academic Press.
Long, M.H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Language Awareness 369

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research, 37, 379–394.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
27, 377–404.
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationships between
modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis.
In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 407–450).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners’ reports about
the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 285–308.
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback:
An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Fujii, A., Egi, T., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working
memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual
differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai
EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL
question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R.M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a
second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 51–84).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition.
ELT J, 47, 203–210.
Ogino, M. (2008). Modified output in response to clarification requests and second language (Un-
published doctoral thesis). The University of Waikato, Waikato.
Philp, J.. (2003). Constraints on noticing the gap: Non-native speakers. noticing of recasts in NS.NNS
interaction Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How
does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–83.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocu-
tor versus feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition: A series of empirical studies (chap. 5). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.
3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (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 (pp. 237–322). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Seliger, H. (1983). Learner interaction in the classroom and its effect on language acquisition. In
H.W. Seliger & M.H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition
(pp. 89–107). Massachussetts: Newbury House.
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for acqui-
sitional research. Language Learning, 52, 597–647.
Shehadeh, A. (2003). Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge.
System, 31, 155–171.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and compre-
hensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language
acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 50, 158–64.
370 J. Philp and N. Iwashita

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer
(Eds.), For H.G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language. A festschrift on
the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),
Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–82). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative
dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A
step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
Takashima, H., & Ellis, R. (1999). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In R.
Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 173–188). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Tognini, R., Philp, J., & Oliver, R. (2010). Rehearsing, conversing, working it out: Second language
use and peer interaction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 28.1–28.25.
Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning,
47, 589–636.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. InB. VanPatten (Ed.), Pro-
cessing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversation: A model for negotiation of
meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction
on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language
Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.