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.
PART A
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 in-text reference.
 For more than a decade, research on focus on form (FonF) has investigatedhow to
draw learners’ attention to linguistic form while maintaining a primary focus on
meaning (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Long, 1991).
 Researchers report that although content-based approaches to language
instruction promote L2 proficiency and the learning of subject matter content,
learnersin these courses may not receive the necessary input, feedback, and
output opportunities for further development of L2 morphosyntax (Pica, 2002).
 In addition, based on pioneering research on French immersion classrooms in
Canada (e.g., Harley & Swain, 1984; Swain, 1985, 1996), Swain proposed that
the kind of output necessary to promote L2 development involves learners being
pushed in their output.
 However, because of processing limitations during comprehension, learners may
experience difficulty in attending to both linguistic form and informational
content at the same time (e.g., VanPatten, 1990).
 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).
 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).
 However, similar to Swain’s (1988) finding for Grade 6 ESL history lessons,
classroom observations revealed that the classroom input learners received rarely
contained verb forms other than the present tense.
 For example, for instructed learners, the preterite emerges first, often as a default
tense, and learners gradually increase their use of the imperfect depending on the
lexical aspectual classes of the verbs (Montrul & Salaberry, 2003).
 This task consisted of stages similar to those of a dictogloss task (Swain &
Lapkin, 2001; Wajnryb, 1990).
 However, because of processing limitations during comprehension, learners may
experience difficulty in attending to both linguistic form and informational
content at the same time (e.g., VanPatten, 1990).
 The comparison provides opportunities for learners to notice and seek out
relevant input in order to express an intended meaning more accurately
(Thornbury, 1997).
 Furthermore, reconstruction tasks control the input learners receive (Swain &
Lapkin, 2001).
 The listening texts used in the study were constructed according to the dictogloss
guidelines for low intermediate learners (Wajnryb, 1990).
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.
 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.
 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).
 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.
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.
 Similarly, drawing upon Levelt’s (1989) speech production model, Izumi (2003)
proposes that output engages the psycholinguistic process of grammatical
encoding of a preverbal message. It is during 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).
 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).
 Izumi concluded that on ‘exposure to relevant input immediately after their
production experience, the heightened sense of problematicity would lead
[learners] to pay closer attention to what was identified to be a problematic area
in their IL. In short, pushed output can induce the learners to process the input
effectively for their greater IL development’ (p. 566).
 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).
4. Capitalise proper nouns, hyphenated compound words in titles, first word after a
colon/ dash.
 Grammatical aspect is concerned with how one views a situation or event: from
the outside as whole or completed (perfective), or from the inside without
considering its beginning or endpoint (imperfective) (Comrie, 1976).
5. Italicise titles of longer works such as books, edited collections, movies,
documentaries.
 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues
vivantes, 65, 2 (December/de´cembre), 195–220.
6. Use open and close quotation marks for titles of shorter work such as journal,
articles, television shows and songs.
 ‘Grama´tica espan˜ ola: Ana´lisis y pra´ctica.’ San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
7. Citation of work with two authors - include both names.
 For example, for instructed learners, the preterite emerges first, often as a
default tense, and learners gradually increase their use of the imperfect
depending on the lexical aspectual classes of the verbs (Montrul &
Salaberry, 2003).
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.
 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).
 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).
 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.
 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).
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.
 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.
10. Arrange multiple citations alphabetically.
 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).
PART B
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
Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.