Leeser, M. J. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology
in content-based instruction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65,2(12),
195–220.
A. Some important notes for in-text citations
1. If an idea is only referred from another work but not directly quoted, or ideas from an entire book
and article are referred, only reference to the author and year of publication are needed in the intext reference.

First, task complexity refers to pedagogic tasks’ information processing demands on
memory, attention, and reasoning (Robinson, 2001a).
2. If an idea from another work is paraphrased, only reference to the author and year of publication
are needed in the in-text reference, and page number is encouraged.

For example, in their observations of university-level content-based courses, both
Musumeci (1996) and Pica found few instances of learner opportunities to negotiate
meaning and/or focus on form.

Swain’s (1985, 1995, 2005) output hypothesis claims that under certain circumstances,
language production (i.e., output) can contribute to the process of second language
acquisition.

Izumi (2003) proposes that output engages the psycholinguistic process of grammatical
encoding of a preverbal message.

In a subsequent study, Izumi (2002) examined how output and textual enhancement
(separately and in combination) would prompt ESL learners to notice and learn English
relative clauses if (written) input was subsequently provided following learners’ output
(reconstruction of written texts).
3. If a direct quotation is included from other people’s work, the author, year of publication, and the
page number should be cited for the references.

The authors suggest that the act of producing a written summary pushed learners to an
increased level of text processing and, therefore, ‘a richer memory of the text’ (p. 365).

As Doughty (2004) noted, assessment measures in which TL usage is ‘the only criterion
for success of an instructional treatment will often fail to capture relevant evidence of
interlanguage development’ (p. 193).

They had, however, ‘little social or cognitive pressure to produce language that reflects
more appropriately or precisely their intended meaning: there is no push to be more
comprehensible than they already are’ (Swain, 1985, p. 249).

Swain (1998) has hypothesized that noticing a gap in their linguistic knowledge may
prompt learners ‘to recognize consciously some of their linguistic problems: it may bring
to their attention something they need to discover about their second language (possibly
directing their attention to relevant input)’ (p. 67).

This grammatical encoding process that learners may become aware of ‘the possibilities
and limitations of what they can or cannot express’ in the target language (p. 183).
4. Capitalise proper nouns, hyphenated compound words in titles, first word after a colon/ dash.

This study examines the effects of learners’ production (i.e., pushed output) during a
multi-stage reconstruction task on learners’ noticing of Spanish past tense morphology,
aural text comprehension, and development of preterite/imperfect usage in writing.

In a recent review of FonF research, Williams (2005) notes that FonF attempts to target
how L2 learners (a) notice words/forms in the input, (b) notice the difference (‘the gap’)
between interlanguage (IL) and target language (TL) forms in the input, and (c)
incorporate target-like forms in their developing IL.

For example, in their observations of university-level content-based courses, both
Musumeci (1996) and Pica found few instances of learner opportunities to negotiate
meaning and/or focus on form.

Since the original formulation of the output hypothesis, Swain (1995, 1998, 2005) has
proposed three potential functions that output might have in SLA: noticing/triggering,
hypothesis testing, and metatalk (i.e., talking about language and showing metalinguistic
awareness).
5. Italicise titles of longer works such as books, edited collections, movies, documentaries.

Memory demands. Another way to characterize cognitive task demands of the current
study is in memorial terms. The HN and TT conditions seem to impose differential
memory demands, which may in turn affect the nature of information processing. For
example, because learners in the TT condition need to memorize and retrieve the
storyline and details, and subsequently produce a coherent narrative, they may be pushed
to ruminate on the storyline, to infer the relationships between events, and to create larger
informational chunks to facilitate memory encoding, storage and retrieval (Robinson,
1995).
6. Use open and close quotation marks for titles of shorter work such as journal, articles, television
shows and songs.

They may capture the assumed deeper semantic processing in terms of subordinating and
embedding clauses, which are associated with the discourse structure of narratives and
with “the construction of higher-order events in which event phases are subordinated and
interrelated” (Berman & Slobin, 1994, p. 13). After reading the directions, the
participants received prompts (the one for the HN condition was written in the present
tense and the one for the TT condition was written in the past tense, see Appendix A) and
a strip cartoon “the supermarket” from Yule (1997) (Appendix B).

In order to determine if these differences were statistically significant,
independent samples t-tests were conducted for the categories ‘noun notes’ and
‘total notes.’
7. Citation of work with two authors - include both names.

In narratives, a canonical use of articles is introducing a participant and subsequent
mentions to the same participant (e.g., Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999).
8. Citation of work with 3- 5 authors, the first time it is referred, include all names. The next time
you refer to the work, shorten the citation and use the words et al.

In two of these studies (Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara,&Fearnow,
1999), the researchers found that learners who engaged in pushed output (reconstructing
a written text) did not notice (underline) more instances of the past hypothetical
conditional than those who answered questions related to the content of the text.

Continued investigation of these effects with aural input is necessary given that (a) what
learners notice and comprehend in written input may be different from in aural input
(e.g., Leeser, 2004b; Leow, 1995; Wong, 2001); and (b) learners are exposed to both
modes of input in instructed and uninstructed settings (Leow, 1995).

This task consisted of stages similar to those of a dictogloss task (Swain& Lapkin, 2001;
Wajnryb, 1990).

The recalls were analyzed according to the percentage of correct idea units that
participants wrote down (e.g., Bernhardt, 1991; Lee, 1986; Leeser, 2004b;Wolf, 1993).

Furthermore, L1 and L2 studies have found that when participants produce written
summaries after reading texts, their retention of important textual information increases
(Doctorow, Marks, & Wittrock, 1978; Oded & Walters, 2001).
9. Citation of a work with six authors (or more), cite only the last name of the first author and use
the words et al.
10. Arrange multiple citations alphabetically.

Results reveal that the þoutput group (a) reported more noticing of words overall, but not
of past tense forms; (b) comprehended more information from the text; and (c) showed
evidence of past tense development in their writing.

In a recent review of FonF research, Williams (2005) notes that FonF attempts to target
how L2 learners (a) notice words/forms in the input, (b) notice the difference (‘the gap’)
between interlanguage (IL) and target language (TL) forms in the input, and (c)
incorporate target-like forms in their developing IL.

Supplementing instructors’ comments on the difficulty learners had with these forms in
their writing, research has shown that (a) even advanced L2 learners rarely master the
uses of the preterite and the imperfect, (b) the development of tense-aspect morphology is
slow, and (c) learners pass through stages of development (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2000;
Montrul, 2005).
B. Some important notes for writing references/ bibliographies
Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning,
and use. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical,
and classroom perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Brantmeier, C. (2005). Nonlinguistic variables in advanced second language reading:
Learners’ self-assessment and enjoyment. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 494–504.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Doctorow, M., Marks, C., & Wittrock, M. (1978). Generative processing in reading
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 109–118.
Doughty, C. (2004). Effects of instruction on learning a second language: A critique of
instructed SLA research. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.),
Form–meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 181–202).
Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–
138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implication
for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A.P.R. Howatt (Eds.),
Interlanguage (pp. 291–311). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental
study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In
search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics,
24, 168–196.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language
acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis:
Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452.
Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative
clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective
output tasks.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 587–609.
King, L., & Sun˜ er, M. (2004). Grama´tica espan˜ ola: Ana´lisis y pra´ctica. San Francisco:
McGraw-Hill.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49,
292–303.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote
students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
Lee, J.F. (1986). Background knowledge and L2 reading. Modern Language Journal, 70, 350–
354.
Leeser, M.J. (2004a). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue.
Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
Leeser, M.J. (2004b). The effects of topic familiarity, mode, and pausing on second language
learners’ comprehension and focus on form. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
26, 587–615.
Leow, R. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 17, 79–89.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K.
de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in
cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lund, R. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension.
Modern Language Journal, 75, 196–204.
McNamara, D.S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and
text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.
Montrul, S. (2005). The acquisition of Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Montrul, S., & Salaberry, R. (2003). The development of tense/aspect morphology in Spanish
as a second language. In B. A. Lafford, & R. Salaberry (Eds.), Spanish second
language acquisition: State of the science (pp. 47–73). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher–learner negotiation in content-based instruction:
Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.
Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading comprehension.
System, 29, 357–370.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs
of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.
Sanz, C. (1997). Experimental tasks in SLA research: Amount of production, modality,
memory, and production process. In W. Glass, & A. Perez-Leroux (Eds.), Contemporary
perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (pp. 41–56). Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–
158.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementizing content teaching to maximize second
language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68–83.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.) Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of
H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1996). Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research
perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 529–548.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471– 483). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–
337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring
task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic
tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 99–118). New York:
Longman.
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote ‘noticing.’ ELT
Journal, 51, 326–335.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in
consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (pp. 671–691). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Wolf, D. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading
comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77, 473–489.
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to form and meaning in the input. Studies in
Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368
Second