Explicit and Implicit Feedback Modified Output and SLA by Adams et al. (2011)

Explicit and Implicit Feedback,Modified Output, and SLA: DoesExplicit and Implicit FeedbackPromote Learning andLearner–Learner Interactions?REBECCA ADAMSUniversity of AucklandDepartment of Applied LanguageStudies and LinguisticsAuckland, New ZealandEmail: [email protected]

ANA MARIA NUEVOAmerican UniversityTESOL Program4400 Massachusetts Avenue,NWWashington, DC 20016Email: [email protected]

TAKAKO EGIUniversity of KentuckyModern and ClassicalLanguages1055 Patterson Office TowerLexington, Kentucky 40506Email: [email protected]

Research on interactional feedback has typically focused on feedback learners receive fromnative speakers (i.e., NS–learner contexts). However, for many second language (L2) learners,the majority of their opportunities to engage in interaction occur with other learners (i.e.,learner–learner contexts). The literature has suggested that feedback in learner–learner in-teraction contexts differs from that found in NS–learner contexts in the quantity of feedbackmoves (e.g., Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003), types of feedback used (Pica, Lincoln-Porter,Paninos, & Linnell, 1996), and narrowness of linguistic foci (Toth, 2008). The current studyexamines how learners provide each other with two types of input-providing feedback, recasts(implicit feedback), and explicit corrections (explicit feedback), in order to investigate howdifferent types of feedback and responses to feedback promote learning of English past tenseand locatives. Findings suggest a limited evidence for a relationship between implicit feedback,modified output, and L2 learning, and evidence for a negative effect of explicit corrections frompeers. These findings indicate that the role of feedback and modified output in learning maybe different in learner–learner interactions than has been found in NS–learner interactions.

WITHIN THE INTERACTIONIST APPROACHto second language acquisition (SLA), correctivefeedback arguably plays a crucial role in direct-ing learners’ attention to second language (L2)form (e.g., Long, 1996; Mackey & Gass, 2006).Defined broadly, corrective feedback is an inter-locutor’s reaction to a learner’s non-target-likeutterance and is a source of negative evidencefor the learner. Corrective feedback may takevarious forms, and several classification schemes

The Modern Language Journal, 95, Supplementary Issue,(2011)DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01242.x0026-7902/11/42–63 $1.50/0C©2012 The Modern Language Journal

proposed to date have grouped feedback movesaccording to (a) their explicitness in identify-ing the error, (b) the provision of an L2 model,and (c) their elicitation of modified output fromlearners. First, corrective feedback may rangein its explicitness/implicitness. Implicit feedbackdoes not overtly signal that an error has beenmade, while explicit feedback does. Implicit feed-back often takes the forms of recasts (correctivereformulations of a learner’s non-target-like ut-terance) (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997) and clari-fication requests (an indication that the learner’sutterance was not understood, such as “pardon?”)(e.g., Loewen & Nabei, 2007), neither of which ex-plicitly indicates the occurrence of the error (e.g.,R. Ellis, 2006). Explicit feedback can be realizedas explicit correction (e.g., no, it’s not eated—ate)

Rebecca Adams, Ana Marıa Nuevo, and Takako Egi 43

or as metalinguistic information (e.g., R. Ellis,2007b).

Feedback can also be classified according towhether or not it provides positive evidencethrough modeling of L2 forms. For instance, feed-back like recasts and explicit corrections offer amodel, while clarification requests do not. Otherexamples of feedback that withhold a model areerror repetitions, metalinguistic clues (informa-tion regarding the utterance’s well-formedness),elicitations (teacher’s incomplete utterances thatprompts learners to provide specific language),and direct requests such as, “How do you say‘X’ in English?” Lyster (2004) has labeled feed-back that does not supply a model as “prompts.”R. Ellis (2006, 2007a) considered these moves“output-prompting” and distinguishes them from“input-providing moves” like recasts and explicitcorrections that provide L2 forms for the learner.R. Ellis pointed out that both input-providingand output-prompting feedback can be eitherimplicit or explicit. Recasts and explicit correc-tions are implicit and explicit counterparts ofinput-providing feedback; of the types of output-prompting feedback, repetitions and clarifica-tion requests are considered as implicit feedback,while metalinguistic feedback, elicitations, and di-rect requests are regarded as explicit feedback.However, a range of feedback can be realized invarious ways that make it more or less explicit,and the explicit–implicit distinction may not al-ways be clear cut (e.g., R. Ellis & Sheen, 2006).Loewen and Nabei’s (2007) classification schemeaddressed ranging explicitness of feedback usinga continuum. Among input-providing feedback,explicit corrections are more towards the explicitend of the continuum, while recasts are more to-wards the implicit end. A taxonomy of correctivefeedback is graphically represented in Figure 1.

The input-providing and output-prompting dis-tinction plays an important role in the amount oflearner responses following feedback. Althoughlearners may respond to any type of feedback ifopportunities are given, feedback that withholdsa model is more likely to encourage learners torespond to the feedback (Lyster & Ranta, 1997;Sheen, 2004). Learner responses can take theform of modified output, which are modificationsthat the learner makes to his or her original non-target-like production. Modified output is consid-ered as an important learning process because itforces learners to reprocess their original output,often leading to syntactic processing and noticingat a deeper, more meaningful level (Swain, 2005).

A large body of studies has compared ex-plicit and implicit feedback (S. Carroll & Swain,

1993; R. Ellis, 2007b; R. Ellis, Loewen, &Erlam, 2006; Kang, 2009; Li, 2009, 2010; Loewen& Nabei, 2007), and input-providing and output-prompting feedback (Ammar, 2008; Ammar &Spada, 2006; Lyster, 2004; Lyster & Izquierdo,2009), and examined the role of modified out-put (e.g., R. Ellis & He, 1999; McDonough, 2004,2005; Nobuyoshi & R. Ellis, 1993). However, find-ings of comparative research on implicit and ex-plicit feedback has been inconclusive in due partto the conflation of implicit–explicit and input–output dimensions of feedback, which will be dis-cussed below. In addition, most feedback stud-ies have focused on the native speaker–nonnativespeaker (NS–NNS) context. Despite this, the pro-liferation of task-based instruction in L2 class-rooms (e.g., Leaver & Willis, 2004) has meant thatmany learners spend a significant amount of timeengaging in tasks with other learners. Therefore,it is important to understand the role of differenttypes of corrective feedback in L2 learning in thelearner–learner context. To this end, the currentstudy investigates the relationship between im-plicit and explicit feedback, modified output, andSLA in learner–learner interactions. One implicitand one explicit form of input-providing feed-back, namely recasts and explicit corrections, arecontrasted. These were selected to allow for con-trast of implicit and explicit feedback within theinput-providing dimension, and because input-providing feedback was much more frequent thanoutput-providing feedback in the current data. Tosituate this study within current research, this re-view will discuss empirical studies on implicit andexplicit feedback as well as those on modified out-put in NS–learner contexts and in learner–learnercontexts.

Implicit and Explicit Feedback and LearnerResponses in Interaction

Numerous classroom studies that have exam-ined the way teachers provide corrective feedback(e.g., Lyster & Mori, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997;Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004) suggest aclear preponderance of implicit feedback in theform of recasts as their preferred method. Re-casts have been argued to be beneficial becausethey present both positive and negative evidencewith little disruption to communication flow, theyare semantically transparent, and they promotenoticing of the gap by juxtaposing target-like andnon-target-like forms (e.g., Long, 1996, 2007).However, some researchers have casted doubtabout their usefulness as corrective feedback be-cause their implicitness may cause learners to

44 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

FIGURE 1Taxonomy of Corrective Feedback

misperceive them as semantic responses (e.g.,Lyster, 2004; Lyster & Ranta, 1997), which maylimit their developmental benefits (Egi, 2007).Explicit corrections can also provide positive andnegative evidence; however, they do so in a muchless ambiguous manner than recasts. Although ex-plicit corrections might be more disruptive thanrecasts, their greater explicitness may minimizemisinterpretation, allowing learning from feed-back to occur more efficiently (Mackey et al.,2007).

Research comparing implicit and explicit feed-back has led to rather inconclusive findings. Al-though some research suggests that explicit feed-back is superior to implicit feedback in demon-strating learning gains (S. Carroll & Swain, 1993;R. Ellis, 2007b; R. Ellis et al., 2006), other stud-

ies have not found differential effects betweenthem (Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Loewen & Nabei,2007). Li’s (2010) meta-analysis based on 33 stud-ies showed that explicit feedback was superior toimplicit feedback on immediate and short delayedposttests, while implicit feedback was superior onlong delayed posttests, though the latter findingis based on a limited sample of four studies, whichcompromises its robustness. However, it is ratherdifficult to draw generalizations based on thesestudies due to several reasons. First, as R. Ellisand his associates noted, previous research hasoperationalized explicit and implicit feedback inconsiderably different ways. For example, explicitfeedback in these studies ranged widely from anindication that an error was made (S. Carroll& Swain, 1993) to metalinguistic comments with


various levels of detail (S. Carroll & Swain, 1993;R. Ellis, 2007b; R. Ellis et al., 2006; Loewen &Nabei, 2007). Furthermore, the type of linguisticknowledge that was tested, implicit versus explicitknowledge, was not accounted for. This issue willbe expanded upon below.

Among the studies that found a superior effectof explicit feedback, R. Ellis and his colleaguescompared the relative effectiveness of explicit andimplicit feedback in promoting the learning ofEnglish past tense (R. Ellis et al., 2006) and com-paratives (R. Ellis, 2007b; R. Ellis et al., 2006) bylower intermediate English as a second language(ESL) learners. Explicit feedback took the formof metalinguistic feedback, which specified thenature of the error (e.g., you need past tense)without presenting the correct alternative, andimplicit feedback took the form of recasts. Thestudies found superiority of explicit feedback overimplicit feedback and no feedback on most of themeasures. However, it is important to note that thetwo types of feedback in these studies differed interms of not only how explicit they were but alsowhether they provided L2 models. In other words,feedback differed along both the explicit–implicitand input–output dimensions.

S. Carroll and Swain’s (1993) laboratorystudy also involved both input-providing andoutput-prompting feedback. They compared therelative effectiveness of explicit (metalinguisticfeedback and explicit corrections) and implicit(recasts and negative evidence) feedback in facili-tating the learning of English dative alternationby low-intermediate ESL learners. Of the fourtypes of feedback, recasts were the only input-providing feedback; although explicit correc-tions are typically considered as input-providing(R. Ellis, 2007a), in this study they did not in-clude a model. The results indicated that the met-alinguistic feedback group, who received both ex-plicit corrections and metalinguistic explanationsabout the dative construction, outperformed theother feedback groups and the control group.

Loewen and his colleagues did not find sig-nificant differences between explicit and implicitfeedback in computer-mediated communication(Loewen & Erlam, 2006) and laboratory (Loewen& Nabei, 2007) contexts. The lack of signifi-cant findings was attributed to low developmentalreadiness and delays in feedback provision in thecomputer-mediated context (Loewen & Erlam,2006) and to a relatively short treatment period inthe classroom setting (Loewen & Nabei, 2007). Ineach study, output-prompting explicit feedbackand input-providing implicit feedback were in-cluded. As the review above indicates, much re-

search on implicit versus explicit feedback hasnot taken into account the output–input dimen-sions of feedback. This calls for a need of studiesthat contrast explicit and implicit feedback withineither input-providing or output-promptingfeedback.

Several classroom studies have compared input-providing and output-prompting types of feed-back and found greater effects of output-prompting feedback, or prompts (Ammar, 2008;Ammar & Spada, 2006; Lyster, 2004). In thesestudies, input-providing feedback took the formof recasts (implicit feedback) while prompts in-volved both implicit (e.g., clarification requests,repetitions) and explicit (e.g., metalinguisticfeedback, elicitation) feedback, as these studieswere not designed to test explicit and implicitfeedback. More recently, Lyster and Izquierdo(2009) compared input-providing feedback (re-cast) and output-prompting feedback (clarifica-tion request) that are both on the implicit end ofthe continuum, and found no significant differ-ences between the two in NS–learner interactions.This study maintained consistency between theinput-providing and output-prompting feedbackwith respect to implicitness. This sort of method-ological refinement points to a need for furthercomparative research to separate the effects ofimplicit and explicit feedback from the effects ofinput-providing and output-prompting feedback.The current study addresses this issue by contrast-ing two types of input-providing feedback, implicitfeedback (recasts) and explicit feedback (explicitcorrections).

R. Ellis and his colleagues have pointed out thatnot only operationalizations of explicit and im-plicit feedback vary across studies, but also thetype of L2 knowledge assessed in operationaliz-ing learning gains has differed between studies.R. Ellis (2009) asserted a distinction betweenexplicit and implicit knowledge. Explicit knowl-edge is knowledge about the second languagethat learners manage through controlled process-ing, which makes demands on working memory.It is symbolically represented and available forverbal report. Implicit knowledge involves intu-itive awareness and automatic processing, whichmakes no demands on attentional resources.It is subsymbolically represented and only evi-denced in behavior (not in verbal report). Inlight of this distinction, certain tests that mea-sure learning gains could clearly favor one type ofknowledge over the other. For example, untimedgrammaticality judgment tests (GJTs), sentencecompletion tests, or translation tests may assessexplicit knowledge rather than implicit knowl-


edge because they allow learners to access infor-mation available through controlled processing.In contrast, other tests such as oral imitation andtimed GJTs may be more suitable for assessing im-plicit knowledge because they are more likely totap learners’ automatic processing and intuitivejudgments.

R. Ellis et al. (2006) question whether implicitand explicit feedback may foster the learning ofparticular types of linguistic knowledge. The over-simplification that implicit feedback can fosterthe learning of implicit knowledge, and that ex-plicit feedback can foster the learning of explicitknowledge, has not been borne out in studies byR. Ellis et al. (2006) and R. Ellis (2007b). Im-plicit feedback can result in explicit knowledge; asR. Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2009) pointed out,in Long, Inagaki, and Ortega (1998) learners whoreceived recasts, a form of implicit feedback, wereable to provide explanations of Spanish adverbword order rules. Contrastively, for R. Ellis et al.(2009), what does seem to hold theoretical rigoris the notion that explicit corrective feedback canfoster both explicit and implicit learning. The re-searchers refer to N. Ellis (2005) for a chain ofcognitive processes that involve the conversionof explicit knowledge to explicit memory, whichthen leads to implicit learning and implicit mem-ory. However, more research that employs bothmeasures of implicit and explicit knowledge isclearly needed to understand the interaction be-tween feedback and the two types of knowledge.

As comparative research on input-providingand output-prompting feedback suggests, the ef-fectiveness of feedback may be closely related tothe occurrence of modified output that follows it.As discussed earlier, the output hypothesis (Swain,2005) claimed that language production is benefi-cial for SLA because it promotes noticing, syntac-tic processing, and hypothesis testing, and mod-ified output following feedback enhances theselearning benefits. In addition to comparative stud-ies that found greater effects of output-promptingfeedback (Ammar, 2008; Ammar & Spada, 2006;Lyster, 2004), research has shown that modifiedoutput can promote learning of vocabulary (e.g.,R. Ellis & He, 1999) and morphosyntax (e.g.,McDonough, 2004, 2005; Nobuyoshi & R. Ellis,1993). Swain further argued that the benefitsof modified output apply regardless of the well-formedness of modified output because the cog-nitive processes involved in producing modifica-tions may be as important as the end product.However, Lyster (2004) pointed out that modifi-cations following input-providing feedback mayrequire different processing than modifications

following output-prompting feedback. Becauseinput-providing feedback provides an L2 model,learners may repeat the model rather than repro-cess their output. Lyster argued that modificationsfollowing a model may involve less cognitive ef-fort. In this case, the target-likeness of the mod-ified output may be more influential in learning(Lyster, 2004). However, thus far, little researchhas investigated how the well-formedness of mod-ified output following input-providing feedbackmight be related to L2 development. This studyaims to shed some light on this issue.

While valuable, the body of research reviewedhere has not considered whether the benefits offeedback described above can extend beyond in-teraction with a teacher or other NS. The fol-lowing section reviews the studies of feedback inlearner–learner interaction.

Feedback in Learner–Learner Interaction

Early studies on feedback in learner–learnerinteraction sought to determine whether learn-ers provided each other with corrective feed-back. Bruton and Samuda (1980) confirmed thatlearners did provide corrective feedback to eachother (also see Gass & Varonis, 1985, 1989; Pica,Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell 1996). Fur-ther studies of learner–learner feedback havefound that participants in both contexts providethe similar amount of feedback (Garcıa Mayo& Pica, 2000; Pica et al., 1996); however, othershave found that corrective feedback was rare inthe learner–learner context (McDonough, 2004;Porter, 1986). Additionally, several studies haveshown that the range of feedback types may belimited in learner–learner interactions. For exam-ple, Pica and her colleagues found that learnersmostly provided repetitions of segments of the in-terlocutor’s utterance that were not understoodor not target-like as their preferred feedback strat-egy (e.g., Garcıa Mayo & Pica, 2000; Pica et al.,1996). More recently, Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman(2003) found that adult NSs provided significantlymore implicit forms of feedback (recasts, confir-mation checks, and clarification requests) to adultlearners than learners did to their peers. Simi-larly, Sato and Lyster (2007) found significantlymore implicit input-providing feedback (recastsand confirmation requests with modification ofthe trigger) in NS–learner than in learner–learnerdyads.

However, findings on the differences in thetypes of feedback have not been consistent acrossstudies. For example, Bruton and Samuda (1980)found learners employing a variety of explicit


and implicit feedback strategies such as recasts,clarification requests, and rejection of incorrectutterances. Additionally, Toth (2008) found thatlearner–learner feedback did not differ in the typeof feedback, but the focus. His data showed thatNS teachers’ feedback usually focused on a sin-gle linguistic issue, while feedback in the learner–learner context focused on a variety of linguisticissues. In sum, feedback in learner–learner inter-actions may differ from NS–learner interactionsin terms of how often feedback is given, how feed-back is given, and what feedback is given on.

Although a body of research has described feed-back in learner–learner interactions, very littlehas investigated whether this feedback promoteslearning. Adams (2007) examined learning fromfeedback among adult ESL learners who partic-ipated in dyadic tasks over a three day period.Using tailor-made posttests, Adams found thatalmost 60% of all feedback episodes promotedlearning of the linguistic issues. This finding isvery promising with regard to SLA in the learner–learner context; however, Adams pointed out thatlearning of peers’ miscorrections, although rare,did occur in the data.

Modified Output and L2 Learning inLearner–Learner Interaction

As with studies about learner–learner feedback,early studies sought to confirm whether learnerswould modify their output in response to feed-back from another NNS interlocutor (Gass &Varonis, 1989; Pica & Doughty, 1985a, 1985b;Porter, 1986). Overall, these studies have shownthat a fellow learner’s feedback can prompt mod-ified output. This appears to hold in the case ofchild (e.g., Morris, 2005) as well as adult learners(e.g., Sato & Lyster, 2007).

Mackey et al. (2003) found that learners weremore likely than NSs to give their interlocutorsan opportunity to modify their output followingboth input-providing and output-prompting feed-back. Likewise, Sato and Lyster (2007) found thatL1 Japanese learners of English as a foreign lan-guage modified their output following feedbacksignificantly more with other learners than withNSs, regardless of feedback type. Although thesestudies do not provide direct evidence of modifiedoutput and learning as other research (e.g., Mc-Donough, 2004, 2005), they seem to point to thepossibility that learner–learner interaction couldpromote learning through the provision of an ap-propriate context for modified output.

Although it is presumed in theory that mod-ified output and repair could lead to learning(e.g., Swain, 2005), there is a rather limited body

of research in the learner–learner context. Mc-Donough (2004) examined whether the modi-fied output of L1 Thai learners of English in peerdyadic interaction would lead to learning of En-glish conditional clauses. She found that thoselearners who had higher amounts of modifiedoutput made significant gains in an oral posttest,whereas those learners with lower amounts ofmodified output did not. However, post hoc anal-yses indicated that the majority of modified out-put was self-initiated (34/41 or 83%), ratherthan feedback-initiated (7/41 or 17%). In addi-tion, learners infrequently responded to negativefeedback (a combination of input-providing andoutput-prompting feedback) with modified out-put (7/34 or 21%). While McDonough (2004)was a somewhat small scale study (N = 16), theresults suggest that learner–learner feedback maynot always prompt modified output that can leadto learning gains.

In sum, empirical research about correc-tive feedback has been conducted primarily inthe NS–learner context and has shown thatfeedback can have a beneficial effect on learn-ing, although there may be variation in the effec-tiveness of different types of feedback, whetherimplicit and explicit, as well as input-providingor output-prompting. Research comparing theNS–learner context to the learner–learner con-text has found both similarities and differences inhow corrective feedback is provided and in how itpromotes modified output. To date, very little re-search has investigated implicit and explicit feed-back in learner–learner interactions, althoughthis has been shown to be an important factor inlearning in the NS–learner context (e.g., R. Elliset al., 2006). The purpose of the current study isto examine the role of implicit and explicit feed-back and modified output in promoting implicitand explicit knowledge in learner–learner inter-actions. In order to isolate the effects of implicitand explicit feedback, only input-providing feed-back is examined. This study contrasts one type ofimplicit input-providing feedback (recasts) withone type of explicit input-providing feedback (ex-plicit corrections).

METHOD

Research Questions

1. Is there a relationship between the provi-sion of recasts and explicit corrections in learner–learner interactions and the acquisition of linguis-tic form?

2. Is there a relationship between the produc-tion of modified output following recasts and


explicit corrections in learner–learner interac-tions and the acquisition of linguistic form?

Participants

The participants in this study were 71 adult ESLlearners. The majority (N = 52) spoke Spanish astheir L1, but there were also speakers of Asian lan-guages (N = 10), African languages (N = 4), andother European languages (N = 5). There were40 females and 31 males, all older than 18, withan average age of 33. They were drawn from 10intact high intermediate-level classes at an adultESL school in the United States.1 The classes ofsix different teachers were involved in the study.Each level involves 15 hours of instruction perweek for 10 weeks, and the high-intermediate levelis the third among four levels at the school. Thecourse followed a performance-based curriculum,organized by life skills topics with correspondinggrammar and vocabulary objectives. Teachers em-ployed a communicative approach to languageteaching. On average, participants self-reported12 years of education in their home countries,ranging from 6 to 20 years of education. At thetime of data collection, they had lived in theUnited States for an average of just over 3.5 years.Classes were randomly assigned to the control(N = 32) and experimental (N = 39) groups.For the treatment group, only students who werepresent for all treatments tests were included inthe analysis.

Procedure

The study followed a pretest–treatment–posttest design. All testing and treatments tookplace in class, with class teachers as well as twoof the researchers present. To keep the data col-lection as uniform as possible, the researchers ad-ministered the treatments, with the teachers help-ing to distribute materials and monitor recording.Immediately following the pretests on the targetforms the treatment group participated in thefirst task-based treatment. Two additional treat-ments were provided on two following days. Eachtreatment lasted approximately 40 minutes. Im-mediately after the final treatment, learners com-pleted the posttests on the target forms. The de-layed posttests were administered one week afterthe posttests. Each testing session lasted approxi-mately 35 minutes. The control group testing fol-lowed the same timeframe as the treatment group,except that they took only the tests. They were in-cluded in the study to control for test repetitioneffects.

Target Forms

For this study, two different targets were cho-sen, English past tense and locatives. They wereselected to draw on different areas of linguisticcompetence, as prior studies of interaction andlearning have indicated that the relationship be-tween engagement in interaction and acquisitionof linguistic knowledge may be mediated by thetarget form (e.g., Jeon, 2007; Williams & Evan,1998).

The development of past tense morphology inEnglish has been examined in many SLA stud-ies (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989; Lardiere,1998; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). Althoughpast tense emerges relatively early, it may not bemastered until learners reach a quite advancedlevel. For instance, learners at this level still oftenomit past tense marking, overgeneralize regularpast tense marking, and use past tense marking ininappropriate contexts (e.g., Johnson & Newport,1989; Lardiere, 1998; Pienemann & Johnston,1987). In general, irregular past tense emergesprior to regular past tense (Salaberry, 2000).Throughout acquisition, learners may over-rely onirregular past tense verbs to express temporality,neglecting marking on regular past tense verbs,particularly in spoken output (Hawkins & Liszka,2003). Because the use of regular past tense isrelated in interlanguage output to that of irregu-lar past tense, the current study measured theseexpressions of temporality together. In addition,because the study examined communicative lan-guage use during learner–learner interactions, itwas not possible to restrict language productionnor feedback to either regular or irregular pasttense. However, separate analyses of regular andirregular past tense were also carried out wherepossible.

The second target form was a set of locativeprepositions (on the right/left, next to, acrossfrom, and between). The acquisition of locativeprepositions has been studied in interaction stud-ies (Long et al., 1998; Loschky, 1994) as well asnoninteraction studies of L2 development anduse (e.g., Becker & M. Carroll, 1997; M. Carroll &Becker, 1993). Locative prepositions use involvessemantic, syntactic, and morphological compe-tence. They may be difficult to acquire, becausethey involve the acquisition of both the semanticcoding of spatial relationships (which may differacross languages) as well as the formal characteris-tics of the locative. To express the meaning “Johnsits to the right of me,” the learner must have se-mantic competence for the meaning of being onthe right side of something, the lexical–syntactic


competence for the correct elements and orderof the phrase, and the morphosyntactic compe-tence for the correct case marking on the object.Errors in the use of locative prepositions may besemantic in nature (e.g., “to the left” instead of“to the right”), lexical–syntactic (e.g., “John sits tome the right of”), or morphosyntactic (e.g., “Johnsits to the right of I”). Both treatment and controlgroups had received prior instruction on both reg-ular and irregular past tense verbs and locatives se-lected for this study; acquisition was operational-ized as increase in knowledge and control of thepreviously learned forms.

Teachers of the classes involved in the studyagreed not to give instruction and linguistic as-sistance for the target forms during the periodof data collection, and not to include them in anytesting or homework. Examination of lesson plansindicated that no teachers had focused instructionon the targeted features during the two weeks pre-ceding data collection as well as the data collec-tion period. Care was taken by the researchers toensure that no other extra-experimental instruc-tion or modeling of the target forms was given.

Treatment Tasks

The treatments in this study were three task-based interactions between learners. Each of thetreatments was composed of three tasks, a warm-up task (spot-the-difference task) and two treat-ment tasks designed to elicit past tense or locatives(picture story task and table seating task, respec-tively). Three different versions of each of thesetask types were developed, and one version ofeach task was used in each of the three treatmentsessions, with the order randomized between ses-sions. The tasks were adapted from commercialESL resource books (Ur, 1981, 1988) and wererepresentative of the types of tasks typically em-ployed in interaction studies (e.g., Garcıa Mayo &Pica, 2000; Mackey et al., 2003; Pica et al., 1996;Swain & Lapkin, 2002). While each task was de-signed to elicit the linguistic targets and allow forfeedback to occur, its focus was the achievementof communicative task goals.

The past tense task was a picture story. In eachversion, learners were each given one half of a pic-ture story consisting of eight pictures, and asked tohide their pictures from their interlocutor. Theyneeded to collaborate to understand the story,and then to write the story together by fillingin a worksheet. The worksheet included a dateand time for each picture; the researcher verballydrew attention to the dates and times and explic-itly stated that the story took place in the past to

strongly orient the learners to the past tense. Thelocatives task was a seating chart task. The learn-ers were given a scenario in which it was importantfor participants in an event to be seated carefully.They were given a picture of a table and chairs,and instructed to collaboratively devise a seatingchart making use of information they were givenabout the participants. Then, they were instructedto fill in a worksheet, in which they described thelocation of each participant with reference to theother participants. During the tasks, learners werepaired with a new partner in each session to en-sure that all learners were exposed to a range of in-teractional styles. In addition, learners interactedboth with learners from their L1 group and withlearners from different L1 groups, to ensure arange of interactional opportunities.

Learners were not specifically instructed togive feedback to each other on the target forms.Rather, they engaged communicatively in the taskand dealt with miscommunications naturally. Thisfactor allowed for variation in the amount of feed-back learners gave and received, making it possi-ble to determine whether differences in feedbackbehavior in task-based interaction led to differ-ences in the amount of modified output producedand in learning the target forms.

Testing Materials

The pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest wereall composed of oral performance tests and un-timed GJTs, which were used to capture differenttypes of knowledge. The selection of tests was mo-tivated by a proposal by R. Ellis et al. (2006) thatrelationships may exist between the type of testand the type of knowledge measured. Differenttests therefore allowed for exploration of the typeof feedback and the type of knowledge learned.Thus, oral tests were used to measure the learners’productive knowledge of the forms before and af-ter the treatment, using a similar communicativecontext as the oral context in which the treat-ments took place. They were intended to measureimplicit knowledge, by requiring learners to com-municate in a time-sensitive manner, in a task thatcalls for a primary focus on meaning, and doesnot ask the learner to use metalinguistic knowl-edge (R. Ellis et al., 2006). The untimed GJTs weredesigned to elicit learners’ explicit knowledge byrequiring learners to make judgments in an un-pressured context, with an attentional focus onform. They also encouraged some level of analy-sis by requiring learners to locate the error (e.g.,R. Ellis et al., 2006). In each test administra-tion, half of the learners in the experimental and


control groups completed the oral tests first andhalf the GJTs. Test order was also counterbalancedat time of testing (e.g., if learners completed theGJT first on the pretest, they completed the oraltest first for the posttest).

Oral Tests. Oral tests were performed individ-ually during class time. Each oral test includedtwo tasks, each one designed to elicit one of thelinguistic targets. Three versions of each oral taskwere created—one each for the pretest, imme-diate posttest, and delayed posttest. These werecounterbalanced among research participants.For each oral task, the learners were given aprompt and instructed to immediately respondorally into an audio recorder. In each case theywere asked to finish the test as quickly as possi-ble. Based on observations during pilot testing,this procedure elicited multiple uses of the tar-gets, but did not promote pausing or online plan-ning, which would signal more use of explicitknowledge. This format was chosen over interac-tional tasks for logistical purposes and in orderto maximize the uniformity of testing conditionamong learners and between the three testingsessions.

Past tense was tested using prompts that re-quired the learner to provide a personal narrationof a memorable past tense event (e.g., their firstday in the United States). Locatives were testedthrough a picture task. Learners were given a se-ries of pictures that depicted groupings of build-ings. For each of the ten pictures, they were givena prompt (e.g., where is the fire station?) and re-quired to answer by describing the location of thebuilding with reference to the buildings near it.There was a minimum of ten elicitations of eachtarget at each time of testing. Both of these test for-mats consisted of free production and have beencited in the literature as measuring implicit knowl-edge (R. Ellis, 2009; Han & Ellis, 1998).

Untimed Grammaticality Judgment Tests. Threeversions of the untimed GJTs were created, andthey were counterbalanced between the pretest,posttest, and delayed posttest. For each of thetarget forms, a test bank was created consistingof 30 target-like sentences. Half of the sentencesfor each structure were then rendered non-target-like by making use of specific error patterns com-monly found in L2 production. These types wereidentified from previous research (e.g., Johnson& Newport, 1989; Pienemann & Johnston,1987).

For each target, ten sentences were selectedfrom the test bank for each of the pretest, posttest,and delayed posttest. Equal tokens of target-like

and non-target-like utterances were presentedfor each structure, and equal numbers of regularand irregular past tense items were includedon each version of the test. An additional tendistracter items (not including past tense orlocatives) were randomized into the tests with thetarget items. In the tests, learners were requiredto judge the grammaticality of each sentence, asshown in Example 1. The GJTs were presented inan untimed format, to allow learners to sufficienttime to (1) semantically process the utterance;(2) notice whether there is something incorrect;and (3) reflect what is incorrect (R. Ellis, 2004)which encourage learners accessing their explicitknowledge.

EXAMPLE 1

GJT ItemInstructions: Read the following sentences. Foreach sentence, you should decide if it usescorrect grammar or incorrect grammar. If thesentence is correct, circle “Yes.” If the sentence isincorrect, circle “No.” If you circle “No,” youshould underline the part of the sentence thatis incorrect.The movie last night bores me.Yes No

Scoring and Coding

The oral tests and task-based treatments weretranscribed by independent transcribers, andthe transcripts were reviewed along with theaudio by two of the researchers, who made minorcorrections. Any segment that the researchersand transcriber understood differently wasconsidered unintelligible and not considered forcoding and analysis. It was necessary to discard4.8% of the data.

Scoring of the Tests. The oral tests were scored bytwo of the researchers; the few discrepancies werediscussed until 100% agreement was reached. Thewritten tests were scored by an independent rater,and then the scores were reviewed by two of the re-searchers. Interrater reliability was 98%. For eachoral test, a past tense score and a locatives scorewere calculated as the percentage of target-likeuse in an obligatory context. For GJTs, learnersreceived one point for any target-like sentencethat was correctly identified as target-like. Theyalso received one point for rejecting any non-target-like sentence, provided they correctly in-dicated the site of the error. For each learner,each locatives score and past tense score wascalculated at each time of testing as the


percentage of correct responses to total items forthat linguistic target (i.e., 10). For each oral andGJ test, the scores could range from 0–100%. Gainscores were then calculated by subtracting thepretest scores from the posttest scores (acquisi-tion gain) and from the delayed posttest scores(retention gain).

For the purposes of the current analysis, onlytests where the treatment group significantly out-performed the control group have been included.This step was taken to ensure that improvementsrelated solely to test repetition effects (wherethe control and experimental groups experiencedsimilar gains) were not inappropriately attributedto effects of feedback in the analysis. Thus, forthe locatives, the oral test gain score at the imme-diate posttest was not included in the analysis. Forthe past tense, the GJT gain score at the immedi-ate posttest was not included.

Coding of Interactional Feedback and ModifiedOutput. The treatments were coded for instancesof feedback as well as modified output. Thecurrent study focused on implicit feedback inthe form of recasts and explicit feedback in theform of explicit corrections, both input-providingforms of feedback. Recasts were defined as refor-mulation of an interlocutor’s utterance that in-volved the non-target-like use of one of the tar-get forms. Unlike experimental studies involvinga NS feedback provider, it was not possible tocontrol for types of recasts learners provided toeach other, hence, the data included various typesof recasts (e.g., partial and full recasts). A recastis illustrated in Example 2 where “she is crying”in a clear past tense context is reformulated as“she cried” with no direct indication that an er-ror was made (all examples are from the currentstudy).

EXAMPLE 2

Implicit Feedback: RecastLearner 1: disappointed she is cryingLearner 2: she criedLearner 1: she cried and on she call him, she callshim and decides to

Explicit corrections were defined as an explicitindication that an error has been committed(e.g., no, wrong, that’s not right) and the pro-vision of an alternative form. Some explicit cor-rections also included metalinguistic information.An explicit correction is illustrated in Example 3where learner 1 is provided with explicit correc-tion (“no”) followed by a model when a past tenseform is required.

EXAMPLE 3

Explicit CorrectionLearner 1: she’s sadLearner 2: no, she was sadLearner 1: she was sad, because she thinking?

In addition, in learner–learner interaction, feed-back providers may not always be able to offercompletely target-like feedback. Thus, recasts andexplicit corrections were further coded as target-like and non-target-like.

It is important to acknowledge that recasts varyin explicitness depending on how they are de-livered (e.g., intonation), and learners may notalways perceive implicit feedback as such, or evenas feedback at all (e.g., Egi, 2007). In otherwords, the illocutionary force of feedback fromthe learner’s perspective may not agree with thefeedback provider’s intention. Nonetheless, re-searchers have classified feedback based primar-ily on its linguistic property and from the feed-back provider’s perspective. This study followedR. Ellis’s (2007b) discussion of the explicitness offeedback, where provision of a L2 model that con-taining a clear indication of error making (e.g.,no, that’s not right) or metalinguistic informa-tion was considered explicit, and bare provisionof a model was not.

In addition to feedback, instances of modifiedoutput were coded. Following Shehadeh’s (1999)schema, responses to feedback were consideredto be modified output if the learner made achange to their incorrect production of the tar-geted forms following recasts and explicit correc-tions of those forms. Modified output includedlearner responses in the form of repeating themodel provided (as in Example 2 and Example 3)or modifying the incorrectly produced targetforms in another way. If the turn following a feed-back turn did not include a modification to theoriginal utterance including the target structure,it was considered as no modified output. Thisincluded turns where the learner repeated theiroriginal utterance, simply acknowledged the feed-back, or ignored/rejected the feedback and con-tinued the topic.2

Because learners receive feedback and producemodified output on forms they have not yet fullymastered, modified output may not always be inthe direction of the target. Modified output thatresulted in target-like production (as in Example 2and Example 3) was coded as target-like mod-ified output. Modified output that did not re-sult in target-like production was coded as non-target-like modified output. Twenty percent of the


TABLE 1Recasts and Explicit Corrections by Linguistic Type

Past Tense Locatives Total

Recasts N 92 (57%) 127 (55%) 219 (55%)mean 2.19 3.02 5.21range 0–9 0–7 0–12

Explicit Correction N 70 (43%) 106 (45%) 176 (45%)mean 1.67 2.52 4.19range 0–12 0–10 0–14

Total N 162 (100%) 233 (100%) 395 (100%)mean 3.86 5.54 9.40range 0–21 0–14 0–21

Note. χ2 = .202, p > .05.

interaction data were coded separately by one ofthe researchers and an independent coder, with91% agreement found. The 9% of the data forwhich agreement was not obtained was excludedfrom the analysis.

In contrast to NS–learner interactions, in alearner–learner interaction, a learner might bothprovide feedback to their interlocutor and receivefeedback from their interlocutor. Because thecurrent study examines the effect of receivingfeedback on learning, for all analyses, statisticsinvolving feedback are based on the feedback anindividual learner received during the treatmentsessions (which is then correlated to individualgain scores). Similarly, for each learner, their indi-vidual production of modified output in responseto feedback (not the total amount of modifiedoutput produced by the dyad) was the basis ofanalysis of modified output and learning.

RESULTS

This section first provides descriptive statisticsfor the interaction data and then reports findings

TABLE 2Target-Like Recasts and Explicit Corrections by Linguistic Type

Target-Like Past Tense Target-Like Locatives Total

Recasts N 57/92 (62%) 85/127 (67%) 142/219 (65%)mean 1.36 2.02 3.38range 0–5 0–6 0–8

Explicit Correction N 46/70 (66%) 78/106 (73%) 124/176 (70%)mean 1.10 1.86 2.96range 0–12 0–9 0–12

Total N 103/162 (64%) 163/233 (70%) 266/395 (67%)mean 2.46 3.88 6.34range 0–16 0–10 0–16

Note. χ2 = 1.67, p > .05.

regarding the relationships between feedback,modified output, and L2 acquisition. For eachof the target forms, the mean amount of recastsand explicit correction for each of the 39 treat-ment group participants was calculated. Descrip-tive statistics for these are summarized in Table 1.

Overall, 395 instances of input-providing feed-back occurred during the learner–learner task in-teractions. As shown in Table 1, learners tended toprovide slightly more implicit feedback, thoughthere was a wide range in the provision of bothfeedback types. There were 162 instances of thetotal feedback directed at past tense, with rela-tively more feedback directed at locatives (233instances).3 For both of the target forms, therewas a tendency to produce slightly more implicitfeedback than explicit feedback.

Table 2 summarizes the provision of target-like feedback. Of the 395 total instances of feed-back, 266 (67%) were target-like. The propor-tion of target-like feedback was similar for bothrecasts (65%) and explicit corrections (70%).A similar pattern was observed also when re-casts and explicit corrections were examined by


TABLE 3Modified Output Following Recasts and Explicit Corrections

Modified Output Past Tense Locatives Modified Total ModifiedFollowing Modified Output Output Output

Recasts N 34/92 (37%) 73/127 (57%) 107/219 (49%)mean .81 1.74 2.55range 0–5 0–5 0–8

Explicit Correction N 39/70 (56%) 64/106 (60%) 103/176 (59%)mean .93 1.52 2.45range 0–10 0–6 0–10

Total N 73/162 (45%) 137/233 (59%) 210/395 (53%)mean 1.74 3.26 5.00range 0–13 0–9 0–13

Note. χ2 = 6.08, p > .05.

linguistic type, with small percentage differencesfor both past tense (recasts, 62%; explicit correc-tions, 66%) and locatives (recasts, 67%; explicitcorrections, 73%). The amount of modified out-put produced following implicit and explicit feed-back was also calculated. This information is dis-played in Table 3.

About half of the feedback (53%) was followedby modified output. Explicit correction led to ahigher rate of modified output (59%) than recasts(49%). This overall pattern holds true also whenresults are examined by linguistic type.

In terms of target-like modified output, only126 instances of feedback (32%) led to target-like modified output. Information on target-likemodified output is summarized in Table 4. Here,recasts and explicit correction led to repair at thesame rate (32%). For locatives, target-like mod-ified output occurred following 39% of recastsand 36% of explicit correction moves. For pasttense, target-like modified output occurred lessfrequently, following only 23% of recasts and 26%of explicit corrections.

TABLE 4Target-Like Modified Output Following Recasts and Explicit Corrections

TL Modified Past Tense TL Locatives TL Total TLOutput Following Modified Output Modified Output Modified Output

Recasts N 21/92 (23%) 49/127 (39%) 70/219 (32%)mean .50 1.17 1.67range 0–3 0–3 0–5

Explicit Correction N 18/70 (26%) 38/106 (36%) 56/176 (32%)mean .43 .90 1.33range 0–3 0–4 0–4

Total N 39/162 (24%) 87/233 (37%) 126/395 (32%)mean .93 2.07 3.00range 0–4 0–5 0–6

Note . χ2 = .57, p > .05, TL = target-like.

As discussed in the method, feedback on pasttense was separated into feedback on regular andirregular past tense forms. These data are dis-played in Table 5. When the data are segregatedby regular and irregular verbs, there are very fewtokens of feedback and modified output. Over-all, explicit correction was used more frequentlythan recasts with irregular verbs (53% of feed-back on irregular verbs), while recasts were usedmore frequently with regular verbs (65% of feed-back on regular verbs). For both regular andirregular verbs, learners were also more likely tomodify their output following explicit corrections(58% for regular, 54% for irregular) than fol-lowing recasts (40% for regular, 31% of irregu-lar). When desegregated by both type of feedbackand type of verb morphology, tokens of target-like modified output are too few for meaningfulanalysis.

Correlation analysis was used to determinewhether there was a relationship between theamount of feedback provided to the learnersand gain scores on oral tests and GJTs (research


TABLE 5Regular and Irregular Past Tense Feedback and Modified Output

Recasts Explicit CorrectionRegular Past Irregular Past Regular Past Irregular Past

Feedback N 57 35 31 39mean 1.36 .83 .74 .93range 0–6 0–3 0–4 0–11

Target-Like Feedback N 35/57 (61%) 22/35 (63%) 20/31 (65%) 26/39 (67%)mean .83 .52 .48 .62range 0–4 0–3 0–4 0–11

Modified Output N 23/57 (40%) 11/35 (31%) 18/31 (58%) 21/39 (54%)mean .55 .26 .43 .50range 0–5 0–1 0–3 0–9

Target-Like Modified Output N 13/57 (23%) 8/35 (23%) 9/31 (29%) 9/39 (23%)mean .31 .19 .21 .21range 0–2 0–1 0–2 0–2

question 1), and whether there was a relationshipbetween the amount of modified output and theirgain scores on these tests (research question 2).Descriptive statistics for each of the acquisition(pretests subtracted from posttests) and retention(pretests subtracted from delayed posttests) mea-sures are displayed in Table 6 (gain scores dis-played here are means of individual gain scores;individual gain scores were used in the inferen-tial analysis). Blanks in the table indicate that

TABLE 6Gain Scores on Oral Tests and GJTs

Past Tense Total Regular Past Irregular Past Locatives

Oral Test Scores Pre-M 57.19 31.27 57.09 55.19SD 20.90 28.52 20.65 16.56Post-M 67.80 41.40 68.23 56.42SD 21.28 36.03 22.05 17.63Delayed-M 70.93 42.30 78.88 57.73SD 18.43 35.60 16.07 10.41

Oral Posttest Gain M 10.61 10.13 11.14SD 21.56 35.43 25.60

Oral Delayed Posttest Gain M 13.74 11.03 21.79 2.54SD 23.34 34.37 21.91 13.46

GJT Scores Pre-M 71.18 62.72 57.27 44.90SD 14.85 19.21 25.67 17.22Post-M 79.41 72.12 60.91 54.21SD 15.85 18.78 23.48 17.36Delayed-M 78.28 79.26 69.47 52.27SD 14.24 22.99 19.29 23.74

GJ Posttest Gain M 9.31SD 20.38

GJ Delayed Posttest Gain M 7.10 16.54 12.20 7.37SD 16.80 24.70 23.63 20.02

Note . GJT = grammaticality judgment test.

independent samples t-tests showed that the con-trol and treatment groups did not have signifi-cantly different gain scores on those measures.As explained above, only when significant differ-ences were found between the groups were testsincluded in this analysis.4

On the delayed oral posttest, there was a greatergain in past tense learning (regular and irregu-lar combined) than locative learning. When regu-lar and irregular verbs were compared, there was


more improvement on irregular verbs in the oraltests at both immediate and delayed posttesting,but on regular verbs in the delayed GJ posttest.In each case, there also were large standard devi-ations among the participants, indicating a widevariation in gain scores. These may be partly dueto negative gains measured for some learners. Theamount of negative gain scores recorded on a testranged from 5% (on the past tense oral delayedposttest gain) to 11% (on the past tense oral im-mediate posttest gain). Overall, the descriptivestatistics suggest that, while most learners bene-fited from the treatments, the interactions weremore effective in promoting learning for somelearners than others. This spread in scores also in-dicates that these data are appropriate for analysisusing associational analysis such as correlation orregression. Correlation, rather than regression,analysis was chosen because of the interdepen-dence of the independent variables. In all analy-ses, instances of the target feature (e.g., target-likefeedback, modified output) were used as the in-dependent variables rather than proportions, to

TABLE 7Learning of Past Tense Following Recasts and Explicit Correction

Regular Irregular Past Tense Total

Oral Oral GJT Oral Oral GJT Oral Oral GJTPost Delay Delay Post Delay Delay Post Delay Delay

Recasts .05 .13 .24 −.29 −.14 −.05 −.16 −.14 .25TL Recasts .10 .19 .31 −.12 −.12 −.02 .01 .21 .41Recast MO .13 .23 .38* −.02 .15 .13 .10 .01 .29Recast TL MO .18 .18 .48*EC −.16 .15 .22 −.43* −.23 −.16 −.12 −.16 .23TL EC −.05 .17 −.35 −.28 −.24 −.23 −.09 −.05 .25EC MO −.08 .23 .01 −.17 −.20 −.09 −.20 −.26 .18EC TL MO −.04 −.24 .24

Note . delay = delayed posttest gain, EC = explicit correction, GJT = grammaticality judgment test, MO =modified output, post = posttest gain, TL = target-like, * = p < .05.

TABLE 8Learning of Locatives Following Recasts and Explicit Correction

Oral Delay GJT Post GJT Delay

Recasts .46* .24 .21TL Recasts .37 .26 .23Recast MO .31 .22 .05Recast TL MO .15 .26 .18EC .28 .15 −.16TL EC .36 .15 −.25EC MO .15 −.06 −.27EC TL MO .18 .10 .04

Note . delay = delayed posttest gain, EC = explicit correction, GJT = grammaticality judgment test, MO =modified output, post = posttest gain, TL = target-like, * = p < .05.

ensure that the cumulative effect of exposure tofeedback and production of modified output wasexamined, rather than response tendencies. Theresults of this analysis are presented in Table 7(past tense) and Table 8 (locatives). For target-like modified output, correlation was performedonly for total past tense scores because the fre-quency of target-like modified output followingregular and irregular verbs was too low for theanalysis to be meaningful.

Table 7 reveals very few significant correlationsbetween the interactional processes examinedhere and learning. No significant relationshipwas found between the provision of recastsand learning on any of the post-treatmentmeasures regardless of the well-formedness ofthe recasts. However, the production of modifiedoutput following recasts (regular past tense)and target-like modified output following recasts(total past tense) were moderately correlatedto gains on the GJT at the delayed posttest.For explicit corrections, there was a significantnegative correlation between explicit corrections


(irregular past tense) and gains on the oralposttest. In other words, a greater number ofexplicit corrections on irregular past tense led tolower levels of learning than a smaller numberof explicit corrections. There were no signifi-cant relationships between modified output ortarget-like modified output following explicitcorrections and learning for past tense.

Similar to the analysis for past tense, therewere few indications that the way that learnersengaged in these interactions promoted theirlearning of locatives (Table 8). The provision ofrecasts was moderately correlated with gains onthe oral test at the delayed posttest, but therewere no other significant relationships betweenthe provision of feedback and learning. Therewere also no relationships between modified out-put or target-like modified output and learning oflocatives.

DISCUSSION

The current study examined implicit and ex-plicit input-providing feedback in learner–learnerinteraction to determine whether the amount andtype of feedback learners received, as well as theirproduction of modified output in response to thatfeedback, influenced their learning of two differ-ent linguistic targets.

Research Question 1: Is there a relationship betweenthe provision of recasts and explicit corrections inlearner–learner interactions and the acquisition of lin-guistic form?

For the past tense, there was no evidence thateither recasts or explicit corrections promotedlearning of regular or irregular past tense. Theonly significant correlation was between explicitcorrection of irregular verbs and the immediateoral posttest gains, and this was a negative cor-relation. This factor suggests that learners whoreceived a greater number of explicit correctionson irregular past tense were less likely to improvetheir target-like use of irregular past tense verbsover the course of the treatments (some of theselearners actually decreased their production oftarget-like irregular past tense). As noted in thecoding section, not all of the feedback providedtarget-like models. For irregular verbs, 67% of ex-plicit corrections and 63% of recasts were target-like, meaning that in each case around a thirdof the feedback was not target-like. When non-target-like feedback is removed from the analysis,there is no significant negative relationship be-tween target-like feedback and learning. It is pos-

sible then that non-target-like feedback may haveprompted some interlanguage restructuring awayfrom the target. It is also possible that the greatersalience of explicit corrections made this effectmore pronounced than recasts, particularly be-cause this relationship was only found with irreg-ular past tense, not regular past tense. Goldschnei-der and DeKeyser (2001) proposed the irregularpast tense may be more perceptually salient thanregular past tense. It is possible that a more salientcorrection strategy on a more perceptually salientform was needed for the feedback to be remem-bered beyond the interaction. It is also possiblethat explicit, perceptually salient feedback on pasttense influenced performance on the oral testsbecause learners tend to rely on irregular verbsto express temporality in oral performance (e.g.,Hawkins & Liszka, 2003).

Turning to the locatives, the only significantcorrelation between feedback and learning wasfound between the provision of recasts and target-like use of locatives in the delayed oral posttest.This finding contrasts with R. Ellis et al.’s (2006)who found that explicit (metalinguistic) feedbackpromoted learning of implicit knowledge mea-sured by an elicited oral imitation test at the de-layed posttest. Regardless of feedback type, boththe current study and R. Ellis et al. (2006) sug-gest that corrective feedback has an effect on thelearning of implicit knowledge.

However, it must be noted that overall, therewas little relationship between the amount offeedback learners received and their subsequentgains. Of the analyses for feedback, only one cor-relation indicated that receiving more feedbackpromoted more learning. While the study wasconducted in a short time frame, the learners wereexposed to similar amounts of feedback as learn-ers in prior studies of feedback, modified output,and development conducted in a NS–learnercontext (cf. Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003). Itseems likely then that feedback may not play asimportant a role in learner–learner interaction asit plays in NS–learner interactions. A possible ex-planation for this was raised by Toth (2008), in astudy comparing teacher-led discourse to learner-led discourse. He found that learners gained lessknowledge of the Spanish unaccusative particle sewhen completing tasks that required its use in thelearner-led condition. Toth found that during theinteraction, teachers focused the discussion ofform narrowly on the linguistic target. Learnersalso focused on the linguistic target, but wereequally likely to focus on lexical items or othermorphosyntactic forms. While learners in the cur-rent study received feedback on the target forms,


feedback was also given on lexical items and onother forms, including articles, other verb tenses,and voice, and pronunciation. This wide range offeedback foci may have made the target forms lesssalient. Focusing on multiple forms at once maymake it less likely for feedback to lead to mea-sureable learning of a few preselected linguisticfeatures like the target forms here. This may ac-count for the differences between the findings ofthis study, and that of Adams (2007), which usedcustom-made posttests on individual items wherefeedback was given, rather than tests targetingselected linguistic features, and found a strongrelationship between feedback and learning.

As noted in the methods, learners were notinstructed to focus their attention on the targetforms, nor indeed to focus on grammaticalaccuracy during the tasks. The wide range inthe provision of feedback on the target forms,as well as the provision of feedback on formsbeyond the targets points to the possibility thatdifferent learners may have approached the tasksdifferently. Some may have been focused onlyon communicating meaning, while others mayhave been more concerned with the accuracy oftheir output. This may imply that, in order forlearner–learner communicative tasks to promotelearning of target forms, teachers may need todirect attention specifically to those forms.

Additionally, because learner–learner interac-tions involve a peer relationship (rather than anexpert–novice relationship as in teacher–learnerinteractions), it is possible that feedback is lesslikely to be perceived as corrective, and thus lesslikely to be used to refine interlanguage knowl-edge (e.g., Egi, 2007; Swain, 2005). This fac-tor points to the possibility that the functionof feedback may differ between teacher–learnerand learner–learner interactions. For example, inthese data, explicit correction was often taken asa signal to discuss linguistic form rather than asfeedback. In Example 4, an explicit correctionturn on a locative by learner 2 begins an exchangewhere several possible solutions are consideredand discarded.

EXAMPLE 4

Discussion of FeedbackLearner 1: Irene is sitting close to Glen.Learner 2: I think it’s beside . . . no← ExplicitcorrectionLearner 1: no, beside noLearner 2: beside noLearner 1: no, it’s uh side hereLearner 2: here here

Learner 1: Irene is in front, Irene is . . . noLearner 2: between is, between the . . .

Learner 1: next . . . to Glen

Learner 2’s initial alternative form is consid-ered but eventually rejected by the learners. Af-ter several exchanges, they agree on a target-likelocative, “next to” and move on to the next de-scription. Learner 2’s feedback served then asa starting point for discussing a form, ratherthan as a final word, as feedback from the ex-pert (the teacher) might be considered. Unliketeacher–learner interactions, dyadic interactionsare a two-sided learning process, and this may in-fluence the way feedback is perceived and pro-cessed. Sato and Lyster (2007) found that learn-ers recognized differences between NS–learnerand learner–learner interactions in terms of theirfeedback giving behaviors, noting when interact-ing with another learner, they often asked oneanother questions because they felt more com-fortable with each other and had more time toconsider what they would say. However, positiveevaluations of learner–learner interactions as afeedback giving context may not translate directlyinto learning benefits. Additionally, social rela-tionships among peers may influence the provi-sion, perception, and acceptance of feedback (cf.Storch, 2002).

Peer interlocutor feedback is based on peerinterlanguage knowledge, which is not equiva-lent to NS knowledge. Although on the surface,the recasts and explicit corrections examined inthis study are similar to those found in stud-ies of NS–learner interaction, they are cruciallydifferent in the level of target language knowl-edge a learner can assume their interlocutor has.In NS–learner interactions, the learner may bemore likely to assume that feedback is only givenon non-target-like utterances, and that feedbackpresents target-like models. It is possible thatlearners are less likely to accept learner feedbackthan NS feedback, because they are less likely to as-sume that feedback from their peer is actually cor-rect. Learners resisting feedback would compli-cate the relationship between feedback and learn-ing. It is particularly important to note that resis-tance to feedback is not unfounded in the currentdata. Also, while not frequent, there are instancesof both target-like and non-target-like utterancesreceiving miscorrections, as in Example 5.

EXAMPLE 5

Miscorrections and ResistanceLearner 1: Carl here


Learner 2: opposite, opposite, oppositeLearner 1: okay and acrossLearner 2: oppositeLearner 1: but you can say acrossLearner 2: across is no across is not to the, thisaction across is not we say, someone is there youare opposite but you don’t say across someplaceLearner 1: across like I seeLearner 2: yes we are opposite but not we across

In this example, learner 1 attempts to replace“opposite” with a locative preposition “across(from)” in turns 3 and 5. Learner 2 rejects thissuggestion in turn 4, and gives (non-target-like)explicit metalinguistic feedback on the meaningsof “opposite” and “across” in turn 6. Learner2’s hand gestures indicated that his definitionfor “across” was restricted to “diagonal from.” Atthe end of the exchange, Learner 1 chooses tomove on (“across like I see”). Similar miscorrec-tions have been noted by previous researchersof learner–learner interactions and feedback aswell, including Adams (2007), Porter (1986), andMackey et al. (2003). Their presence suggests thatthe link between feedback and learning demon-strated in NS–learner studies may not apply di-rectly to learner–learner studies. Learning maynot be closely related to the amount of feedbackreceived either because that feedback may notbe target-like, or because the learner is unsurewhether or not his or her interlocutor’s feedbackis target-like. Future research should considerlearner perceptions of NS versus peer feedback inoral communication to determine whether peerfeedback is perceived differently, and how thatmight affect learning outcomes.

Overall, the findings of this study do not pointto a strong relationship between feedback andlearning in learner–learner interactions. This mayindicate that the benefits of learner–learner in-teractions to language learning (as demonstratedby differences in performance between the treat-ment and control groups) are motivated by otheraspects of interaction. Because learners had re-ceived prior instruction on these forms, it is pos-sible that learner–learner interaction on targetedtasks constituted a language practice opportunitythat consolidated existing knowledge. It is alsopossible that social aspects of interaction, includ-ing the opportunity to engage in collaborative talk(e.g., Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002), pro-motes learning through peer interaction. Thesefindings suggest that aspects of NS–learner inter-action that promote learning may not be as bene-ficial in learner–learner interactions.

Research Question 2: Is there a relationship betweenthe production of modified output following recasts andexplicit corrections in learner–learner interactions andthe acquisition of linguistic form?

The production of modified output followingrecasts and explicit corrections was not relatedto any implicit or explicit learning measures forlocatives. However, for regular past tense, modi-fied output following recasts was significantly re-lated to learning by the delayed GJT. For the pasttense overall, target-like modified output follow-ing recasts was significantly correlated to learningby the delayed GJT. Again, it is interesting thatmodified output following implicit feedback wasrelated to gains in explicit knowledge. These find-ings are similar to those of Loewen’s (2004) studyon the effectiveness of different types of incidentalfeedback in teacher–learner classroom discourseon learners’ explicit knowledge. Loewen foundthat uptake (where learners modified their utter-ances) and target-like uptake (where learners in-corporated the feedback into their modified out-put) were the strongest predictors of successfulcompletion of posttest items that were designedto test explicit knowledge. He suggested that thisfinding supports Swain’s (2000) contention thatthe process of producing modified output pusheslearners to process language differently. It is possi-ble that this processing impacts most strongly ex-plicit knowledge, regardless of the explicitness ofthe feedback that preceded it. The act of modify-ing one’s output might then serve to promote theconversion of the implicit knowledge into explicitone. This study lends some limited support for ex-tending Swain’s proposals about modified outputand learning to learner–learner interaction.

It should be remembered, however, as notedin prior studies of modified output and learningin NS–learner and learner–learner contexts (cf.Loewen, 2004; McDonough, 2004; McDonough,2005), that learning from modified output maynot represent new linguistic knowledge, butrather a step in a gradual learning process. Formsthat are modified are likely to be partially known,and modified output may be more related to con-trol and accuracy than to new linguistic knowl-edge. In this respect, the definition of learningadopted by comparing pre and posttest meansis necessarily broad. Future research on learner–learner interactions might benefit from a conver-sational analysis of microgenetic change in inter-action, as suggested by Seedhouse (2004).

As with the findings on feedback, there werevery few findings linking modified output or more


target-like modified output to learning. It is pos-sible that the connection between these could bestronger in a study examining output-promptingfeedback, given that modified output followingoutput-prompting requires learners to reprocesstheir language production, encouraging them toanalyze the language more deeply (Lyster, 2004).Different tasks may prompt learners to providefeedback differently; a study with a different treat-ment design may be able to elicit enough implicitand explicit output-prompting feedback for com-parison.

It should also be noted that these findings di-verge from findings in earlier studies of feedbackin learner–learner interactions, which have of-ten found that learners use very limited, output-prompting feedback strategies (e.g., Pica, 1992)and that feedback in learner–learner interactionswas very rarely given explicitly, if it was given atall (e.g., Porter, 1986). This trend may be due tothe fact that earlier studies of feedback in learner–learner interaction used oral tasks, while this studyused tasks with both oral and written components.Recent studies on interactions between learnershave indicated that using writing/speaking tasks,rather than speaking tasks alone, increases theamount of focus on form (Adams, 2006) and influ-ences the way focus on form is carried out (Adams& Ross-Feldman, 2008). It is likely that including awriting component in the task may have promotedthe greater use of feedback in these interactions,and particularly of explicit feedback.

TABLE 9Learning of Past Tense and Locatives Following Total Feedback

Past Tense

Regular Irregular Past Tense Total

Oral Oral GJT Oral Oral GJT Oral Oral GJTPost Delay Delay Post Delay Delay Post Delay Delay

Total Feedback .10 .19 .08 −.47* −.23 −.11 −.15 −.16 .29Total TL Feedback .12 .22 −.02 −.27 −.23 −.14 −.09 −.05 .25Total MO .06 .27 .28 −.17 −.16 .05 −.10 −.18 .24Total TL MO .11 −.01 .41

Locatives

Oral Delay GJT Post GJT Delay

Total Feedback .43* .24 .01Total TL Feedback .43* .25 −.04Total MO .19 .11 −.05Total TL MO .18 .10 .04

Note . delay = delayed posttest gain, GJT = grammaticality judgment test, MO = modified output, post =posttest gain, TL = target-like, * = p < .05.

In studies of learner–learner, as opposed to NS–learner, interaction, it is not possible to limit thetype of feedback given to learners. Thus, the learn-ers in this study were exposed to a mix of implicitand explicit feedback on the target forms. Theprevious discussion has shown relatively little rela-tionship between the amount of input-providingfeedback learners received, their production ofmodified output, and subsequent learning. Input-providing feedback was chosen as the focus forthis analysis because there was relatively littleoutput-prompting feedback in this data. However,most of the learners in this study did not receiveonly implicit or explicit feedback, but rather wereexposed to both. It is possible that the cumula-tive effect of feedback provided, rather than theexplicitness of that feedback, promotes learning.Therefore, a post-hoc analysis of total provisionof feedback, total production of modified output,and learning was conducted. The results for thisanalysis are listed in Table 9.

For past tense, there was again little evidencethat feedback was related to learning. Only onesignificant correlation was found: a negative cor-relation between irregular past tense feedbackand learning on the oral posttest. This resultclosely mirrors the finding for explicit correc-tions, discussed above, and is likely accounted forby the presence of the explicit corrections datain this correlation analysis. There were two sig-nificant correlations in the analysis of total loca-tives feedback: a positive, moderate correlation


between feedback and learning measured by theoral delayed posttest, and a positive, moderate cor-relation between target-like feedback and learn-ing measured by that same test. Recasts were sig-nificantly positively correlated with the learningof locatives on the oral delayed posttest; whilenot significant, the remaining feedback measureswere also positively correlated with learning ofthe target locatives on the oral delayed posttest.Therefore, it is not surprising that the combi-nation of these data would yield a significantrelationship. These data lend some support thatfeedback between learners can contribute tolearning (cf. Adams, 2007) at least for locativesin the current data. Overall, however, the relativepaucity of significant findings supports the inter-pretation that feedback and modified output mayplay a quite limited role in promoting learning inlearner–learner interactions.

It should be noted that patterns of learning di-verged across the target structures included in thisstudy. This pattern may be related to the differentnature of learning past tense (which is largely mor-phosyntax based) and learning locative construc-tions (which are more lexically based). It is likelythat certain types of feedback are more effectivefor certain types of language forms. For example,prior NS–learner research has shown that recastsmay be more likely to promote the learning of lex-ical items (e.g., Jeon, 2007), providing a possibleexplanation for the relationship found betweenthe input-providing feedback in the current studyand the learning of locatives measured by oraltests. However, these differences (particularly forthe oral tests) may also be related to differencesin the ways that these structures were measured:in relatively free production for past tense andrelatively closed production for locatives. The ef-fect of the provision of feedback on productionmay be more clearly measurable in a more closedproduction task.

Additionally, the use of intact classes in thisstudy meant that learners, while very similar inoverall communicative ability, differed in termsof educational and linguistic backgrounds. Thesevariables, and other differences among learnersin terms of motivation and other affective factors,may have mediated the effectiveness of feedbackand modified output for any one learner.

IMPLICATIONS

This study has important implications for bothinteraction theory and for classroom practice. Interms of interaction theory, this study provides afirst contrast of input-providing implicit and ex-

plicit feedback, and its impact on learning in thelearner–learner context. Our findings build onprior research highlighting differences betweenNS–learner and learner–learner interactions, in-dicating that some of the interactional processesthat have been shown to promote learning inNS–learner interactions might play a differentor less important role in learner–learner inter-actions. It supports the findings of Toth (2008)and Adams (2007) that have indicated that the dif-ferences between NS–learner and learner–learnerinteractions found in descriptive studies (Gass &Varonis, 1985; Mackey et al., 2003; Pica et al.,1996) may influence the way that these interac-tions promote learning. This finding strength-ens the argument for considering learner–learnerinteractions as significantly different from NS–learner interactions, and for continuing researchto understand the learning opportunities uniqueto this context. Further research that connects in-dividual learner characteristics, interactional pro-cesses, and learning in a variety of contexts isneeded. A conversation analysis approach to un-derstanding classroom interaction may be helpfulto disentangle these complexities. For the class-room, these findings also illustrate the impor-tance of teacher input in interactionally basedlearning, suggesting that at least for certain lin-guistic targets, feedback in learner–learner dis-course may not strongly promote learning.

It should be noted that different types offeedback and different effects for that feedbackmay be found using other communicative tasks,or among other learner populations. Long-termstudies that follow learner experiences in com-municative tasks over time may help elucidatethe relationship between peer feedback, modi-fied output, and learning. Likewise, a qualitativeapproach might be necessary to allow for morein-depth understanding of how different aspectsof peer interaction are perceived by learners,and how these perceptions may shape learningopportunities in both NS–learner and learner–learner interactions. Finally, in learner–learnerinteractions, learners act as both providers andreceivers of feedback. Future research could con-sider whether providing feedback to an interlocu-tor plays a role in learning through interaction.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide limited evi-dence for the effectiveness of feedback in learner–learner interactions in promoting learning, andfor a role of modified output following re-casts in supporting gains in explicit knowledge.


However, direct connections between implicitfeedback and implicit learning, and between ex-plicit feedback and explicit learning were notstrongly supported by these data. These data sug-gest a complex relationship between the explicit-ness of feedback and acquisition of different typesof knowledge in learner–learner interactions.These findings also underscore the psychologicalcomplexity of feedback in learner–learner inter-actions, implying that further research consider-ing the learner’s perspective may build a betterunderstanding of feedback’s function in learner–learner discourse.

NOTES

1Because intact classes were used in this study, itwas not possible to more narrowly control the par-ticipant characteristics. While this limitation shouldbe considered when applying the results to other re-search, it should be remembered that the use of in-tact classes increases the pedagogical authenticity of theresearch.

2Prior studies of uptake and modified output (e.g.,Lyster & Mori, 2006) have separated topic continuationfrom other instances where the feedback is not used infollowing turns. However, because these turns did notinclude modifications to output and because there werea very small number of topic continuation turns, theywere coded as nonmodification turns for the currentstudy.

3This may be related to the nature of the tasks—the picture story task used to elicit past tense requiredstudents to use many other linguistic forms, and somepairs may have focused their attention on a wide rangeof forms, rather than narrowly on past tense. The rel-atively more close-ended locatives tasks may have ori-ented learners to focus more on this linguistic target.

4Correlations carried out between nonsignificant testmeasures and feedback and modified output data re-sulted in no significant findings.

REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form:A role for modality? ITL: International Review ofApplied Linguistics, 152, 7–34.

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefitfrom interacting with each other? In A. Mackey(Ed.), Conversational interaction in second languageacquisition: A series of empirical studies. (pp. 29–51).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing in-fluence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher& A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral/literate connection:Perspectives on L2 speaking/writing connections (pp.243–267). Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.

Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differentialeffects on second language morphosyntax. Lan-guage Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Re-casts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 28, 543–574.

Becker, A., & Carroll, M. (1997). The acquisition of spatialrelations in a second language . Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacherroles in the treatment of oral error in group work.RELC Journal , 11(2), 49–63.

Carroll, M., & Becker, A. (1993). Reference to space inlearner varieties. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult lan-guage acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives (Vol.2, pp. 119–149). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit neg-ative feedback: An empirical study of the learningof linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 15, 357–386.

Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ perceptions, and L2development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversationalinteraction in second language acquisition: A seriesof empirical studies (pp. 249–267). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interac-tions of explicit and implicit language knowledge.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 , 305–352.

Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2explicit knowledge. Language Learning , 54, 227–275.

Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focusedinstruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19 ,18–41.

Ellis, R. (2007a). Corrective feedback in theory, research andpractice . Paper presented at the 5th InternationalConference on ELT in China & the 1st Congressof Chinese Applied Linguistics.

Ellis, R. (2007b). The differential effects of correctivefeedback on two grammatical structures. In A.Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in secondlanguage acquisition: A series of empirical studies.(pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowl-edge, and instruction. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C.Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.),Implicit and explicit knowledge in second languagelearning, testing, and teaching (pp. 3–23). Bristol,England: Multilingual Matters.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified inputand output in the incidental acquisition of wordmeanings. Studies in Second Language Learning , 21,285–301.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit andexplicit corrective feedback and the acquisition ofL2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion, 28, 339–368.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2009). Implicit andexplicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of


L2 grammar. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R.Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit andexplicit knowledge in second language learning, test-ing, and teaching (pp. 303–332). Bristol, England:Multilingual Matters.

Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the roleof recasts in second language acquisition. Stud-ies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.

Garcıa Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). Interactionamong proficient learners: Are input, feed-back and output needs addressed in a foreignlanguage context? Studia Linguistica, 54, 272–279.

Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and non-native/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S.Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second languageacquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs innonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), Thedynamic interlanguage (pp. 71–86). New York: Plat-inum Press.

Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explainingthe “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” inEnglish: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants.Language Learning , 51, 1–50.

Han, Y., & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicitknowledge and general language proficiency. Lan-guage Teaching Research, 2, 1–23.

Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source ofdefective past tense marking in advanced L2 En-glish speakers. In R. v. Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, &R. J. Towell (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface in sec-ond language acquisition (pp. 21–44). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive ev-idence in task-based interaction: Differential ef-fects on L2 development. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 25, 1–36.

Jeon, S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Char-acterizing linguistic development. In A. Mackey(Ed.), Conversational interaction in second languageacquisition: A series of empirical studies. (pp. 379–403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical periodeffects in second language learning: The influenceof maturational state on the acquisition of Englishas a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 217–248.

Kang, H. -S. (2009). The relative efficacy of explicitand implicit feedback in the learning of a less-commonly-taught foreign language. IRAL, 47 ,303–324.

Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphol-ogy in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. SecondLanguage Research, 14, 359–375.

Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. R. (2004). Task-basedinstruction in foreign language education: Prac-tices and programs. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity.

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language devel-opment: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Sec-ond Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.

Li, S. (2009). The differential effects of implicit and ex-plicit feedback on second language (L2) learnersat different proficiency levels. Applied LanguageLearning , 19 , 53–78.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedbackin SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning , 60 ,309–365.

Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on formin meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learn-ing , 54, 153–188.

Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback inthe chatroom: An experimental study. ComputerAssisted Language Learning , 19 , 1–14.

Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects oforal corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A.Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in secondlanguage acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp.361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic envi-ronment in second language acquisition. In W.Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second lan-guage acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Aca-demic Press.

Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The roleof implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models andrecasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern LanguageJournal , 82, 357–371.

Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and secondlanguage acquisition: What is the relationship?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 , 303–325.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and re-casts in form-focused instruction. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 26 , 399–432.

Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recastsin dyadic interaction. Language Learning , 59 , 453–498.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedbackand instructional counterbalance. Studies in Sec-ond Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback andlearner uptake: Negotiation of form in commu-nicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Ac-quisition, 19 , 37–66.

Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M.,Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teach-ers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions aboutcorrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innova-tion in Language Learning and Teaching , 1, 129–152.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Introduction. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178.

Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interac-tional input and the incorporation of feedback:An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adultand child dyads. Language Learning , 53, 35–66.


McDonough, K. (2004). Learner–learner interactionduring pair and small group activities in a ThaiEFL context. System, 32, 207–224.

McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of nega-tive feedback and learners’ responses on ESL ques-tion development. Studies in Second Language Ac-quisition, 27 , 79–103.

Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction and correc-tive feedback in a computer mediated L2 class.Language Learning & Technology, 9 , 29–45.

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communica-tion tasks and second language acquisition. EnglishLanguage Teaching Journal , 47 , 203–210.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of correctivefeedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly, 36 , 573–595.

Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of nativespeaker–non-native speaker negotiation: What dothey reveal about second language learning? InC. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Textand context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lan-guage study (pp. 198–237). Washington, DC: D. C.Heath.

Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985a). Input and interactionin the communicative language classroom: A com-parison of teacher-fronted and group activities.In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 115–132). Rowley, MA:Newbury.

Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985b). The role of groupwork in classroom second language acquisition.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 , 233–248.

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J.(1996). Language learners’ interaction: How doesit address the input, output, and feedback needsof L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30 , 59–84.

Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influ-encing the development of language proficiency.In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language ac-quisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaiade, NewZealand: National Curriculum Resource Center,AMEP.

Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Inputand interaction in task-centered discussions. In R.R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 200–222). Rowley, MA:Newbury.

Salaberry, M. R. (2000). The acquisition of English pasttense in an instructional setting. System, 28, 135–152.

Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output ofJapanese EFL learners: Variable effects of inter-locutor versus feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.),Conversational interaction in second language acqui-sition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 123–142).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architec-ture of the language classroom: A conversationanalysis perspective. Language Learning , 54(s1),x–300.

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner up-take in communicative classrooms across instruc-tional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.

Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers’ productionof modified comprehensible output and secondlanguage learning. Language Learning , 49 , 627–675.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pairwork. Language Learning , 52, 119–158.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond:Mediating acquisition through collaborative dia-logue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory andsecond language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory andresearch. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of researchin second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer–peer dialogue as a means of second languagelearning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22,171–185.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: TwoFrench immersion learners’ response to reformu-lation. International Journal of Educational Research,37 , 285–304.

Toth, P. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse intask-based language instruction: Providing proce-dural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic develop-ment. Language Learning , 58, 237–283.

Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work: Task-centered fluencypractice . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities: A practicalguide for teachers. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Williams, J., & Evan, J. (1998). What kind of focus and onwhich forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),Focus on form in classroom second language acquisi-tion (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Documents

Explicit and Implicit Feedback Modified Output and SLA by Adams et al. (2011)