APA styles (Michael J. Leeser)
Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based
instruction. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues
vivantes, 65(2), 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).
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, 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).
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.
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).
Swain’s (1985, 1995, 2005) output hypothesis proposes that one function of output
is that while expressing meaning, learners may come to realize or ‘notice’ some of
their linguistic problems and perhaps direct their attention to relevant input.
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).
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).
4.
Capitalise proper nouns, hyphenated compound words in titles, first word after a
colon/ dash.
The Spanish preterite encodes perfective aspect, as in (1), and the imperfect
encodes imperfective aspect, as in (2) (see, for example, King & Sun˜ er, 2004,
and Montrul, 2005, for further discussion):
1. El muchacho fue a la playa. (The boy went to the beach.)
2. El muchacho iba a la playa. (The boy used to go/was going to the
beach.)
These multiple-choice questions were in English so that they would not
incidentally cause learners to focus on a particular grammatical form (Izumi et al.,
1999):
(3) The story of Tejalpa is typical of many rural Central Mexican cities.
(a) strongly agree (b) somewhat agree (c) somewhat disagree (d) strongly
disagree
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).
5. Italicise titles of longer works such as books, edited collections, movies, documentaries.
Un groupe d’apprenants (avec production) a e´coute´ une se´rie de passages, puis
s’est engage´ dans des taˆches de reconstruction du texte.
Un autre groupe (sans production) a e´coute´ les meˆmespassages, mais a ensuite
re´pondu a` des questions de compre´hension avec choix multiples, au lieu de
tenter de reconstruire le texte
6. Use open and close quotation marks for titles of shorter work such as journal, articles,
television shows and songs.
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 fact, Kowal and Swain (1994) report that when learners engaged in a dictogloss
task intended to draw attention to present tense verb endings, only 20% of learners’
critical language-related episodes (CLREs) actually concerned these target forms.
More recently, Izumi and Izumi (2004) examined whether pushed oral output
would promote L2 English learners’ acquisition of object of preposition (OPREP)
relative clauses.
With the exception of Izumi and Izumi (2004), previous studies have examined
how pushed output affects learners’ subsequent processing of written input.
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.
These multiple-choice questions were in English so that they would not
incidentally cause learners to focus on a particular grammatical form (Izumi et al.,
1999):
(3) The story of Tejalpa is typical of many rural Central Mexican cities.
(a) strongly agree (b) somewhat agree (c) somewhat disagree (d) strongly
disagree
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.
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).
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).
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).
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
Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.
instruction:
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.