Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 166:2 (2015) ► pp.307–329

Pushed output in a multi-stage dictogloss task

An investigation into the noticing function of output

| Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)

The present study set out to determine how learners’ written production would affect their noticing and production of a specific language form (the English 3rd person singular present tense marker -s) upon receiving relevant input subsequently, in an attempt to contribute to the ongoing debate about how production affects noticing of linguistic forms. One hundred and eighteen (118) English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) learners (age range 15–6) in two educational contexts (Content and Language Integrated Learning and mainstream EFL) carried out a multi-stage dictogloss task. They followed the usual steps in this type of task (listen and jot down key words, text reconstruction). Then the experimental group (EG) listened to the text once again and compared it with their reconstructed version of the original passage. Their production of the target feature was compared to that of a control group (CG) who did not receive input after their own reconstruction. Results showed that the difference between the EG and the CG in the amount of instances of the target feature produced in the dictogloss task did not reach statistical significance. In other words, the act of producing and subsequent exposure to relevant input did not affect the noticing and production of the morpheme under study. In addition, no interaction between the pushed output condition and the educational context was found.

Keywords: noticing, output-input-output cycle, the English 3rd person singular present tense marker -s, dictogloss, Content and Language Integrated Learning
Published online: 21 January 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.166.2.05bas
References
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K
(2006) Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 121, 75–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S.D
(1974) Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 241, 235–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M.P
(2013) Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., García Mayo, M.P., & Leeser, M.J
(2014) Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum, 221, 7–22.Google Scholar
Bongartz, C
(2003) Grammar growth and L1 transfer: On accuracy development in immersion programs. In J. Rymarczyk & H. Haudeck (Eds.), In search of the active learner (pp. 99–115). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brown, R
(1973) A first language: The early stages. London: George Allen & Unwin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C
(2007) Discourse in content-and-language-integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Graaff, R., Koopman, G.J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G
(2007) An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R
(2005) What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 551, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H.C., & Burt, M.K
(1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 231, 245–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eurydice European Network
(2006) Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
García Mayo, M.P
(2002) Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 323–341. Special issue on “The role of interaction in instructed language learning”. Guest Editors: M. P. García Mayo & E. Alcón Soler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M.P., & Villarreal Olaizola, I
(2011) The development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque-Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research, 27(1), 129–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S
(1997) Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2003) Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A
(2000) Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goenaga, P
(1980) Gramatika bideetan. Donostia: Erein.Google Scholar
Goldshneider, J., & DeKeyser, R
(2005) Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 55, Supplement 1: 27–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B
(2001) The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 231, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., & Wexler, K
(2002) Why is “is” easier than “-s”? Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English. Second Language Research, 181, 95–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S
(2002) Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 241, 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M
(2000) Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 341, 239–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 211, 421–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S
(1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Jäppinen, A.-K
(2005) Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 148–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Järvinen, H.M
(2005) CLIL in Finland. In The CLIL quality matrix. Central workshop report, coord. D. Marsh. Retrieved from [URL]
Kumaravadivelu, B
(1991) Language learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (2), 98–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D
(1998) Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language Research, 141, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–129). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D
(2009) The Implementation of CLIL and Attitudes towards Trilingualism. ITL –International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1571, 23–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M.J
(2008) Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65 (2), 195–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R
(2010) Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luk, Z.P., & Shirai, Y
(2009) Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural –s, articles, and possessive’s. Language Learning, 59(4), 721–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K
(2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 221, 471–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M
(2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pica, T
(2002) Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 861, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, J
(1973) Error analysis and second language strategies. In J. Oller & J. Richards (Eds.), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher (pp. 1–27). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R
(1990) The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 111, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M., & Tucker, G
(1974) Error analysis and English language strategies of Arab students. Language Learning, 24(1), 69–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L
(1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 101, 209–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M
(1993) Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 151, 165–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, M.-J., & Suh, B.-R
(2008) The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 361, 295–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N
(2007) Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16(2), 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M
(1985) Communicative Competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Gook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Syndicate, U.C.L.E
(2001) Quick placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S
(1997) Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”. ELT Journal, 511, 326–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uggen, M.S
(2012) Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 505–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B
(1996) Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2007) Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R
(1990) Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, L
(2003) Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 61, 129–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J
(1998) What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar