Explicit and Implicit Feedback, Modied Output, and SLA: Does Explicit and Implicit Feedback Promote Learning

and LearnerLearner Interactions?

REBECCA ADAMS University of Auckland Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics Auckland, New Zealand Email: r.adams@auckland.ac.nz ANA MAR IA NUEVO American University TESOL Program 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 Email: nuevo@american.edu TAKAKO EGI University of Kentucky Modern and Classical Languages 1055 Patterson Ofce Tower Lexington, Kentucky 40506 Email: takako.egi@uky.edu

Research on interactional feedback has typically focused on feedback learners receive from native speakers (i.e., NSlearner contexts). However, for many second language (L2) learners, the majority of their opportunities to engage in interaction occur with other learners (i.e., learnerlearner contexts). The literature has suggested that feedback in learnerlearner interaction contexts differs from that found in NSlearner contexts in the quantity of feedback moves (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 study examines how learners provide each other with two types of input-providing feedback, recasts (implicit feedback), and explicit corrections (explicit feedback), in order to investigate how different types of feedback and responses to feedback promote learning of English past tense and locatives. Findings suggest a limited evidence for a relationship between implicit feedback, modied output, and L2 learning, and evidence for a negative effect of explicit corrections from peers. These ndings indicate that the role of feedback and modied output in learning may be different in learnerlearner interactions than has been found in NSlearner interactions.

WITHIN THE INTERACTIONIST APPROACH to second language acquisition (SLA), corrective feedback arguably plays a crucial role in directing learners attention to second language (L2) form (e.g., Long, 1996; Mackey & Gass, 2006). Dened broadly, corrective feedback is an interlocutors reaction to a learners non-target-like utterance and is a source of negative evidence for the learner. Corrective feedback may take various forms, and several classication schemes

The Modern Language Journal, 95, Supplementary Issue, (2011) DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01242.x 0026-7902/11/4263 $1.50/0 C 2012 The Modern Language Journal

proposed to date have grouped feedback moves according to (a) their explicitness in identifying the error, (b) the provision of an L2 model, and (c) their elicitation of modied output from learners. First, corrective feedback may range in its explicitness/implicitness. Implicit feedback does not overtly signal that an error has been made, while explicit feedback does. Implicit feedback often takes the forms of recasts (corrective reformulations of a learners non-target-like utterance) (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997) and clarication requests (an indication that the learners utterance was not understood, such as pardon?) (e.g., Loewen & Nabei, 2007), neither of which explicitly indicates the occurrence of the error (e.g., R. Ellis, 2006). Explicit feedback can be realized as explicit correction (e.g., no, its not eatedate)

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi or as metalinguistic information (e.g., R. Ellis, 2007b). Feedback can also be classied according to whether or not it provides positive evidence through modeling of L2 forms. For instance, feedback like recasts and explicit corrections offer a model, while clarication requests do not. Other examples of feedback that withhold a model are error repetitions, metalinguistic clues (information regarding the utterances well-formedness), elicitations (teachers incomplete utterances that prompts learners to provide specic language), and direct requests such as, How do you say X in English? Lyster (2004) has labeled feedback 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 explicit corrections that provide L2 forms for the learner. R. Ellis pointed out that both input-providing and output-prompting feedback can be either implicit or explicit. Recasts and explicit corrections are implicit and explicit counterparts of input-providing feedback; of the types of outputprompting feedback, repetitions and clarication requests are considered as implicit feedback, while metalinguistic feedback, elicitations, and direct requests are regarded as explicit feedback. However, a range of feedback can be realized in various ways that make it more or less explicit, and the explicitimplicit distinction may not always be clear cut (e.g., R. Ellis & Sheen, 2006). Loewen and Nabeis (2007) classication scheme addressed ranging explicitness of feedback using a continuum. Among input-providing feedback, explicit corrections are more towards the explicit end of the continuum, while recasts are more towards the implicit end. A taxonomy of corrective feedback is graphically represented in Figure 1. The input-providing and output-prompting distinction plays an important role in the amount of learner responses following feedback. Although learners may respond to any type of feedback if opportunities are given, feedback that withholds a model is more likely to encourage learners to respond to the feedback (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sheen, 2004). Learner responses can take the form of modied output, which are modications that the learner makes to his or her original nontarget-like production. Modied output is considered as an important learning process because it forces learners to reprocess their original output, often leading to syntactic processing and noticing at a deeper, more meaningful level (Swain, 2005). A large body of studies has compared explicit and implicit feedback (S. Carroll & Swain,

43 1993; R. Ellis, 2007b; R. Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; Kang, 2009; Li, 2009, 2010; Loewen & Nabei, 2007), and input-providing and outputprompting feedback (Ammar, 2008; Ammar & Spada, 2006; Lyster, 2004; Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009), and examined the role of modied output (e.g., R. Ellis & He, 1999; McDonough, 2004, 2005; Nobuyoshi & R. Ellis, 1993). However, ndings of comparative research on implicit and explicit feedback has been inconclusive in due part to the conation of implicitexplicit and input output dimensions of feedback, which will be discussed below. In addition, most feedback studies have focused on the native speakernonnative speaker (NSNNS) context. Despite this, the proliferation of task-based instruction in L2 classrooms (e.g., Leaver & Willis, 2004) has meant that many learners spend a signicant amount of time engaging in tasks with other learners. Therefore, it is important to understand the role of different types of corrective feedback in L2 learning in the learnerlearner context. To this end, the current study investigates the relationship between implicit and explicit feedback, modied output, and SLA in learnerlearner interactions. One implicit and one explicit form of input-providing feedback, namely recasts and explicit corrections, are contrasted. These were selected to allow for contrast of implicit and explicit feedback within the input-providing dimension, and because inputproviding feedback was much more frequent than output-providing feedback in the current data. To situate this study within current research, this review will discuss empirical studies on implicit and explicit feedback as well as those on modied output in NSlearner contexts and in learnerlearner contexts. Implicit and Explicit Feedback and Learner Responses in Interaction Numerous classroom studies that have examined the way teachers provide corrective feedback (e.g., Lyster & Mori, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004) suggest a clear preponderance of implicit feedback in the form of recasts as their preferred method. Recasts have been argued to be benecial because they present both positive and negative evidence with little disruption to communication ow, they are semantically transparent, and they promote noticing of the gap by juxtaposing target-like and non-target-like forms (e.g., Long, 1996, 2007). However, some researchers have casted doubt about their usefulness as corrective feedback because their implicitness may cause learners to

44
FIGURE 1 Taxonomy of Corrective Feedback

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

misperceive them as semantic responses (e.g., Lyster, 2004; Lyster & Ranta, 1997), which may limit their developmental benets (Egi, 2007). Explicit corrections can also provide positive and negative evidence; however, they do so in a much less ambiguous manner than recasts. Although explicit corrections might be more disruptive than recasts, their greater explicitness may minimize misinterpretation, allowing learning from feedback to occur more efciently (Mackey et al., 2007). Research comparing implicit and explicit feedback has led to rather inconclusive ndings. Although some research suggests that explicit feedback is superior to implicit feedback in demonstrating learning gains (S. Carroll & Swain, 1993; R. Ellis, 2007b; R. Ellis et al., 2006), other stud-

ies have not found differential effects between them (Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Loewen & Nabei, 2007). Lis (2010) meta-analysis based on 33 studies showed that explicit feedback was superior to implicit feedback on immediate and short delayed posttests, while implicit feedback was superior on long delayed posttests, though the latter nding is based on a limited sample of four studies, which compromises its robustness. However, it is rather difcult to draw generalizations based on these studies due to several reasons. First, as R. Ellis and his associates noted, previous research has operationalized explicit and implicit feedback in considerably different ways. For example, explicit feedback in these studies ranged widely from an indication that an error was made (S. Carroll & Swain, 1993) to metalinguistic comments with

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi various levels of detail (S. Carroll & Swain, 1993; R. Ellis, 2007b; R. Ellis et al., 2006; Loewen & Nabei, 2007). Furthermore, the type of linguistic knowledge that was tested, implicit versus explicit knowledge, was not accounted for. This issue will be expanded upon below. Among the studies that found a superior effect of explicit feedback, R. Ellis and his colleagues compared the relative effectiveness of explicit and implicit feedback in promoting the learning of English past tense (R. Ellis et al., 2006) and comparatives (R. Ellis, 2007b; R. Ellis et al., 2006) by lower intermediate English as a second language (ESL) learners. Explicit feedback took the form of metalinguistic feedback, which specied the nature of the error (e.g., you need past tense) without presenting the correct alternative, and implicit feedback took the form of recasts. The studies found superiority of explicit feedback over implicit feedback and no feedback on most of the measures. However, it is important to note that the two types of feedback in these studies differed in terms of not only how explicit they were but also whether they provided L2 models. In other words, feedback differed along both the explicitimplicit and inputoutput dimensions. S. Carroll and Swains (1993) laboratory study also involved both input-providing and output-prompting feedback. They compared the relative effectiveness of explicit (metalinguistic feedback and explicit corrections) and implicit (recasts and negative evidence) feedback in facilitating the learning of English dative alternation by low-intermediate ESL learners. Of the four types of feedback, recasts were the only inputproviding feedback; although explicit corrections are typically considered as input-providing (R. Ellis, 2007a), in this study they did not include a model. The results indicated that the metalinguistic feedback group, who received both explicit corrections and metalinguistic explanations about the dative construction, outperformed the other feedback groups and the control group. Loewen and his colleagues did not nd signicant differences between explicit and implicit feedback in computer-mediated communication (Loewen & Erlam, 2006) and laboratory (Loewen & Nabei, 2007) contexts. The lack of signicant ndings was attributed to low developmental readiness and delays in feedback provision in the computer-mediated context (Loewen & Erlam, 2006) and to a relatively short treatment period in the classroom setting (Loewen & Nabei, 2007). In each study, output-prompting explicit feedback and input-providing implicit feedback were included. As the review above indicates, much re-

45 search on implicit versus explicit feedback has not taken into account the outputinput dimensions of feedback. This calls for a need of studies that contrast explicit and implicit feedback within either input-providing or output-prompting feedback. Several classroom studies have compared inputproviding and output-prompting types of feedback and found greater effects of outputprompting feedback, or prompts (Ammar, 2008; Ammar & Spada, 2006; Lyster, 2004). In these studies, input-providing feedback took the form of recasts (implicit feedback) while prompts involved both implicit (e.g., clarication requests, repetitions) and explicit (e.g., metalinguistic feedback, elicitation) feedback, as these studies were not designed to test explicit and implicit feedback. More recently, Lyster and Izquierdo (2009) compared input-providing feedback (recast) and output-prompting feedback (clarication request) that are both on the implicit end of the continuum, and found no signicant differences between the two in NSlearner interactions. This study maintained consistency between the input-providing and output-prompting feedback with respect to implicitness. This sort of methodological renement points to a need for further comparative research to separate the effects of implicit and explicit feedback from the effects of input-providing and output-prompting feedback. The current study addresses this issue by contrasting two types of input-providing feedback, implicit feedback (recasts) and explicit feedback (explicit corrections). R. Ellis and his colleagues have pointed out that not only operationalizations of explicit and implicit feedback vary across studies, but also the type of L2 knowledge assessed in operationalizing learning gains has differed between studies. R. Ellis (2009) asserted a distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is knowledge about the second language that learners manage through controlled processing, which makes demands on working memory. It is symbolically represented and available for verbal report. Implicit knowledge involves intuitive awareness and automatic processing, which makes no demands on attentional resources. It is subsymbolically represented and only evidenced in behavior (not in verbal report). In light of this distinction, certain tests that measure learning gains could clearly favor one type of knowledge over the other. For example, untimed grammaticality judgment tests (GJTs), sentence completion tests, or translation tests may assess explicit knowledge rather than implicit knowl-

46 edge because they allow learners to access information available through controlled processing. In contrast, other tests such as oral imitation and timed GJTs may be more suitable for assessing implicit knowledge because they are more likely to tap learners automatic processing and intuitive judgments. R. Ellis et al. (2006) question whether implicit and explicit feedback may foster the learning of particular types of linguistic knowledge. The oversimplication that implicit feedback can foster the learning of implicit knowledge, and that explicit feedback can foster the learning of explicit knowledge, has not been borne out in studies by R. Ellis et al. (2006) and R. Ellis (2007b). Implicit feedback can result in explicit knowledge; as R. Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2009) pointed out, in Long, Inagaki, and Ortega (1998) learners who received recasts, a form of implicit feedback, were able to provide explanations of Spanish adverb word order rules. Contrastively, for R. Ellis et al. (2009), what does seem to hold theoretical rigor is the notion that explicit corrective feedback can foster both explicit and implicit learning. The researchers refer to N. Ellis (2005) for a chain of cognitive processes that involve the conversion of explicit knowledge to explicit memory, which then leads to implicit learning and implicit memory. However, more research that employs both measures of implicit and explicit knowledge is clearly needed to understand the interaction between feedback and the two types of knowledge. As comparative research on input-providing and output-prompting feedback suggests, the effectiveness of feedback may be closely related to the occurrence of modied output that follows it. As discussed earlier, the output hypothesis (Swain, 2005) claimed that language production is benecial for SLA because it promotes noticing, syntactic processing, and hypothesis testing, and modied output following feedback enhances these learning benets. In addition to comparative studies that found greater effects of output-prompting feedback (Ammar, 2008; Ammar & Spada, 2006; Lyster, 2004), research has shown that modied output 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 benets of modied output apply regardless of the wellformedness of modied output because the cognitive processes involved in producing modications may be as important as the end product. However, Lyster (2004) pointed out that modications following input-providing feedback may require different processing than modications

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) following output-prompting feedback. Because input-providing feedback provides an L2 model, learners may repeat the model rather than reprocess their output. Lyster argued that modications following a model may involve less cognitive effort. In this case, the target-likeness of the modied output may be more inuential in learning (Lyster, 2004). However, thus far, little research has investigated how the well-formedness of modied output following input-providing feedback might be related to L2 development. This study aims to shed some light on this issue. While valuable, the body of research reviewed here has not considered whether the benets of feedback described above can extend beyond interaction with a teacher or other NS. The following section reviews the studies of feedback in learnerlearner interaction. Feedback in LearnerLearner Interaction Early studies on feedback in learnerlearner interaction sought to determine whether learners provided each other with corrective feedback. Bruton and Samuda (1980) conrmed that learners did provide corrective feedback to each other (also see Gass & Varonis, 1985, 1989; Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell 1996). Further studies of learnerlearner feedback have found that participants in both contexts provide the similar amount of feedback (Garc a Mayo & Pica, 2000; Pica et al., 1996); however, others have found that corrective feedback was rare in the learnerlearner context (McDonough, 2004; Porter, 1986). Additionally, several studies have shown that the range of feedback types may be limited in learnerlearner interactions. For example, Pica and her colleagues found that learners mostly provided repetitions of segments of the interlocutors utterance that were not understood or not target-like as their preferred feedback strategy (e.g., Garc a Mayo & Pica, 2000; Pica et al., 1996). More recently, Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman (2003) found that adult NSs provided signicantly more implicit forms of feedback (recasts, conrmation checks, and clarication requests) to adult learners than learners did to their peers. Similarly, Sato and Lyster (2007) found signicantly more implicit input-providing feedback (recasts and conrmation requests with modication of the trigger) in NSlearner than in learnerlearner dyads. However, ndings on the differences in the types of feedback have not been consistent across studies. For example, Bruton and Samuda (1980) found learners employing a variety of explicit

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi and implicit feedback strategies such as recasts, clarication requests, and rejection of incorrect utterances. Additionally, Toth (2008) found that learnerlearner feedback did not differ in the type of feedback, but the focus. His data showed that NS teachers feedback usually focused on a single linguistic issue, while feedback in the learner learner context focused on a variety of linguistic issues. In sum, feedback in learnerlearner interactions may differ from NSlearner interactions in terms of how often feedback is given, how feedback is given, and what feedback is given on. Although a body of research has described feedback in learnerlearner interactions, very little has investigated whether this feedback promotes learning. Adams (2007) examined learning from feedback among adult ESL learners who participated in dyadic tasks over a three day period. Using tailor-made posttests, Adams found that almost 60% of all feedback episodes promoted learning of the linguistic issues. This nding is very promising with regard to SLA in the learner learner context; however, Adams pointed out that learning of peers miscorrections, although rare, did occur in the data. Modied Output and L2 Learning in LearnerLearner Interaction As with studies about learnerlearner feedback, early studies sought to conrm whether learners would modify their output in response to feedback from another NNS interlocutor (Gass & Varonis, 1989; Pica & Doughty, 1985a, 1985b; Porter, 1986). Overall, these studies have shown that a fellow learners feedback can prompt modied output. This appears to hold in the case of child (e.g., Morris, 2005) as well as adult learners (e.g., Sato & Lyster, 2007). Mackey et al. (2003) found that learners were more likely than NSs to give their interlocutors an opportunity to modify their output following both input-providing and output-prompting feedback. Likewise, Sato and Lyster (2007) found that L1 Japanese learners of English as a foreign language modied their output following feedback signicantly more with other learners than with NSs, regardless of feedback type. Although these studies do not provide direct evidence of modied output and learning as other research (e.g., McDonough, 2004, 2005), they seem to point to the possibility that learnerlearner interaction could promote learning through the provision of an appropriate context for modied output. Although it is presumed in theory that modied output and repair could lead to learning (e.g., Swain, 2005), there is a rather limited body

47 of research in the learnerlearner context. McDonough (2004) examined whether the modied output of L1 Thai learners of English in peer dyadic interaction would lead to learning of English conditional clauses. She found that those learners who had higher amounts of modied output made signicant gains in an oral posttest, whereas those learners with lower amounts of modied output did not. However, post hoc analyses indicated that the majority of modied output was self-initiated (34/41 or 83%), rather than feedback-initiated (7/41 or 17%). In addition, learners infrequently responded to negative feedback (a combination of input-providing and output-prompting feedback) with modied output (7/34 or 21%). While McDonough (2004) was a somewhat small scale study (N = 16), the results suggest that learnerlearner feedback may not always prompt modied output that can lead to learning gains. In sum, empirical research about corrective feedback has been conducted primarily in the NSlearner context and has shown that feedback can have a benecial effect on learning, although there may be variation in the effectiveness of different types of feedback, whether implicit and explicit, as well as input-providing or output-prompting. Research comparing the NSlearner context to the learnerlearner context has found both similarities and differences in how corrective feedback is provided and in how it promotes modied output. To date, very little research has investigated implicit and explicit feedback in learnerlearner interactions, although this has been shown to be an important factor in learning in the NSlearner context (e.g., R. Ellis et al., 2006). The purpose of the current study is to examine the role of implicit and explicit feedback and modied output in promoting implicit and explicit knowledge in learnerlearner interactions. In order to isolate the effects of implicit and explicit feedback, only input-providing feedback is examined. This study contrasts one type of implicit input-providing feedback (recasts) with one type of explicit input-providing feedback (explicit corrections). METHOD Research Questions 1. Is there a relationship between the provision of recasts and explicit corrections in learner learner interactions and the acquisition of linguistic form? 2. Is there a relationship between the production of modied output following recasts and

48 explicit corrections in learnerlearner interactions and the acquisition of linguistic form? Participants The participants in this study were 71 adult ESL learners. The majority (N = 52) spoke Spanish as their L1, but there were also speakers of Asian languages (N = 10), African languages (N = 4), and other European languages (N = 5). There were 40 females and 31 males, all older than 18, with an average age of 33. They were drawn from 10 intact high intermediate-level classes at an adult ESL school in the United States.1 The classes of six different teachers were involved in the study. Each level involves 15 hours of instruction per week for 10 weeks, and the high-intermediate level is the third among four levels at the school. The course followed a performance-based curriculum, organized by life skills topics with corresponding grammar and vocabulary objectives. Teachers employed a communicative approach to language teaching. On average, participants self-reported 12 years of education in their home countries, ranging from 6 to 20 years of education. At the time of data collection, they had lived in the United 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 were present for all treatments tests were included in the analysis. Procedure The study followed a pretesttreatment posttest design. All testing and treatments took place in class, with class teachers as well as two of the researchers present. To keep the data collection as uniform as possible, the researchers administered the treatments, with the teachers helping to distribute materials and monitor recording. Immediately following the pretests on the target forms the treatment group participated in the rst task-based treatment. Two additional treatments were provided on two following days. Each treatment lasted approximately 40 minutes. Immediately after the nal treatment, learners completed the posttests on the target forms. The delayed posttests were administered one week after the posttests. Each testing session lasted approximately 35 minutes. The control group testing followed the same timeframe as the treatment group, except that they took only the tests. They were included in the study to control for test repetition effects.

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) Target Forms For this study, two different targets were chosen, English past tense and locatives. They were selected to draw on different areas of linguistic competence, as prior studies of interaction and learning have indicated that the relationship between engagement in interaction and acquisition of linguistic knowledge may be mediated by the target form (e.g., Jeon, 2007; Williams & Evan, 1998). The development of past tense morphology in English has been examined in many SLA studies (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989; Lardiere, 1998; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). Although past tense emerges relatively early, it may not be mastered until learners reach a quite advanced level. For instance, learners at this level still often omit past tense marking, overgeneralize regular past tense marking, and use past tense marking in inappropriate contexts (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989; Lardiere, 1998; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). In general, irregular past tense emerges prior to regular past tense (Salaberry, 2000). Throughout acquisition, learners may over-rely on irregular 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 is related in interlanguage output to that of irregular past tense, the current study measured these expressions of temporality together. In addition, because the study examined communicative language use during learnerlearner interactions, it was not possible to restrict language production nor feedback to either regular or irregular past tense. However, separate analyses of regular and irregular past tense were also carried out where possible. The second target form was a set of locative prepositions (on the right/left, next to, across from, and between). The acquisition of locative prepositions has been studied in interaction studies (Long et al., 1998; Loschky, 1994) as well as noninteraction studies of L2 development and use (e.g., Becker & M. Carroll, 1997; M. Carroll & Becker, 1993). Locative prepositions use involves semantic, syntactic, and morphological competence. They may be difcult to acquire, because they involve the acquisition of both the semantic coding of spatial relationships (which may differ across languages) as well as the formal characteristics of the locative. To express the meaning John sits to the right of me, the learner must have semantic competence for the meaning of being on the right side of something, the lexicalsyntactic

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi competence for the correct elements and order of the phrase, and the morphosyntactic competence for the correct case marking on the object. Errors in the use of locative prepositions may be semantic in nature (e.g., to the left instead of to the right), lexicalsyntactic (e.g., John sits to me the right of), or morphosyntactic (e.g., John sits to the right of I). Both treatment and control groups had received prior instruction on both regular and irregular past tense verbs and locatives selected for this study; acquisition was operationalized as increase in knowledge and control of the previously learned forms. Teachers of the classes involved in the study agreed not to give instruction and linguistic assistance for the target forms during the period of data collection, and not to include them in any testing or homework. Examination of lesson plans indicated that no teachers had focused instruction on the targeted features during the two weeks preceding data collection as well as the data collection period. Care was taken by the researchers to ensure that no other extra-experimental instruction or modeling of the target forms was given. Treatment Tasks The treatments in this study were three taskbased interactions between learners. Each of the treatments was composed of three tasks, a warmup task (spot-the-difference task) and two treatment tasks designed to elicit past tense or locatives (picture story task and table seating task, respectively). Three different versions of each of these task types were developed, and one version of each task was used in each of the three treatment sessions, with the order randomized between sessions. The tasks were adapted from commercial ESL resource books (Ur, 1981, 1988) and were representative of the types of tasks typically employed in interaction studies (e.g., Garc a Mayo & Pica, 2000; Mackey et al., 2003; Pica et al., 1996; Swain & Lapkin, 2002). While each task was designed to elicit the linguistic targets and allow for feedback to occur, its focus was the achievement of communicative task goals. The past tense task was a picture story. In each version, learners were each given one half of a picture story consisting of eight pictures, and asked to hide their pictures from their interlocutor. They needed to collaborate to understand the story, and then to write the story together by lling in a worksheet. The worksheet included a date and time for each picture; the researcher verbally drew attention to the dates and times and explicitly stated that the story took place in the past to

49 strongly orient the learners to the past tense. The locatives task was a seating chart task. The learners were given a scenario in which it was important for participants in an event to be seated carefully. They were given a picture of a table and chairs, and instructed to collaboratively devise a seating chart making use of information they were given about the participants. Then, they were instructed to ll in a worksheet, in which they described the location of each participant with reference to the other participants. During the tasks, learners were paired with a new partner in each session to ensure that all learners were exposed to a range of interactional styles. In addition, learners interacted both with learners from their L1 group and with learners from different L1 groups, to ensure a range of interactional opportunities. Learners were not specically instructed to give feedback to each other on the target forms. Rather, they engaged communicatively in the task and dealt with miscommunications naturally. This factor allowed for variation in the amount of feedback learners gave and received, making it possible to determine whether differences in feedback behavior in task-based interaction led to differences in the amount of modied output produced and in learning the target forms. Testing Materials The pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest were all composed of oral performance tests and untimed GJTs, which were used to capture different types of knowledge. The selection of tests was motivated by a proposal by R. Ellis et al. (2006) that relationships may exist between the type of test and the type of knowledge measured. Different tests therefore allowed for exploration of the type of feedback and the type of knowledge learned. Thus, oral tests were used to measure the learners productive knowledge of the forms before and after the treatment, using a similar communicative context as the oral context in which the treatments took place. They were intended to measure implicit knowledge, by requiring learners to communicate in a time-sensitive manner, in a task that calls for a primary focus on meaning, and does not ask the learner to use metalinguistic knowledge (R. Ellis et al., 2006). The untimed GJTs were designed to elicit learners explicit knowledge by requiring learners to make judgments in an unpressured context, with an attentional focus on form. They also encouraged some level of analysis by requiring learners to locate the error (e.g., R. Ellis et al., 2006). In each test administration, half of the learners in the experimental and

50 control groups completed the oral tests rst and half the GJTs. Test order was also counterbalanced at time of testing (e.g., if learners completed the GJT rst on the pretest, they completed the oral test rst for the posttest). Oral Tests. Oral tests were performed individually during class time. Each oral test included two tasks, each one designed to elicit one of the linguistic targets. Three versions of each oral task were createdone each for the pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest. These were counterbalanced among research participants. For each oral task, the learners were given a prompt and instructed to immediately respond orally into an audio recorder. In each case they were asked to nish the test as quickly as possible. Based on observations during pilot testing, this procedure elicited multiple uses of the targets, but did not promote pausing or online planning, which would signal more use of explicit knowledge. This format was chosen over interactional tasks for logistical purposes and in order to maximize the uniformity of testing condition among learners and between the three testing sessions. Past tense was tested using prompts that required the learner to provide a personal narration of a memorable past tense event (e.g., their rst day in the United States). Locatives were tested through a picture task. Learners were given a series of pictures that depicted groupings of buildings. For each of the ten pictures, they were given a prompt (e.g., where is the re station?) and required to answer by describing the location of the building with reference to the buildings near it. There was a minimum of ten elicitations of each target at each time of testing. Both of these test formats consisted of free production and have been cited in the literature as measuring implicit knowledge (R. Ellis, 2009; Han & Ellis, 1998). Untimed Grammaticality Judgment Tests. Three versions of the untimed GJTs were created, and they were counterbalanced between the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. For each of the target forms, a test bank was created consisting of 30 target-like sentences. Half of the sentences for each structure were then rendered non-targetlike by making use of specic error patterns commonly found in L2 production. These types were identied from previous research (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). For each target, ten sentences were selected from the test bank for each of the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. Equal tokens of target-like

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) and non-target-like utterances were presented for each structure, and equal numbers of regular and irregular past tense items were included on each version of the test. An additional ten distracter items (not including past tense or locatives) were randomized into the tests with the target items. In the tests, learners were required to judge the grammaticality of each sentence, as shown in Example 1. The GJTs were presented in an untimed format, to allow learners to sufcient time to (1) semantically process the utterance; (2) notice whether there is something incorrect; and (3) reect what is incorrect (R. Ellis, 2004) which encourage learners accessing their explicit knowledge. EXAMPLE 1 GJT Item Instructions: Read the following sentences. For each sentence, you should decide if it uses correct grammar or incorrect grammar. If the sentence is correct, circle Yes. If the sentence is incorrect, circle No. If you circle No, you should underline the part of the sentence that is incorrect. The movie last night bores me. Yes No Scoring and Coding The oral tests and task-based treatments were transcribed by independent transcribers, and the transcripts were reviewed along with the audio by two of the researchers, who made minor corrections. Any segment that the researchers and transcriber understood differently was considered unintelligible and not considered for coding and analysis. It was necessary to discard 4.8% of the data. Scoring of the Tests. The oral tests were scored by two of the researchers; the few discrepancies were discussed until 100% agreement was reached. The written tests were scored by an independent rater, and then the scores were reviewed by two of the researchers. Interrater reliability was 98%. For each oral test, a past tense score and a locatives score were calculated as the percentage of target-like use in an obligatory context. For GJTs, learners received one point for any target-like sentence that was correctly identied as target-like. They also received one point for rejecting any nontarget-like sentence, provided they correctly indicated the site of the error. For each learner, each locatives score and past tense score was calculated at each time of testing as the

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi percentage of correct responses to total items for that linguistic target (i.e., 10). For each oral and GJ test, the scores could range from 0100%. Gain scores were then calculated by subtracting the pretest scores from the posttest scores (acquisition gain) and from the delayed posttest scores (retention gain). For the purposes of the current analysis, only tests where the treatment group signicantly outperformed the control group have been included. This step was taken to ensure that improvements related solely to test repetition effects (where the control and experimental groups experienced similar gains) were not inappropriately attributed to effects of feedback in the analysis. Thus, for the locatives, the oral test gain score at the immediate posttest was not included in the analysis. For the past tense, the GJT gain score at the immediate posttest was not included. Coding of Interactional Feedback and Modied Output. The treatments were coded for instances of feedback as well as modied output. The current study focused on implicit feedback in the form of recasts and explicit feedback in the form of explicit corrections, both input-providing forms of feedback. Recasts were dened as reformulation of an interlocutors utterance that involved the non-target-like use of one of the target forms. Unlike experimental studies involving a NS feedback provider, it was not possible to control for types of recasts learners provided to each other, hence, the data included various types of recasts (e.g., partial and full recasts). A recast is 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 error was made (all examples are from the current study). EXAMPLE 2 Implicit Feedback: Recast Learner 1: disappointed she is crying Learner 2: she cried Learner 1: she cried and on she call him, she calls him and decides to Explicit corrections were dened as an explicit indication that an error has been committed (e.g., no, wrong, thats not right) and the provision of an alternative form. Some explicit corrections also included metalinguistic information. An explicit correction is illustrated in Example 3 where learner 1 is provided with explicit correction (no) followed by a model when a past tense form is required. EXAMPLE 3 Explicit Correction Learner 1: shes sad Learner 2: no, she was sad Learner 1: she was sad, because she thinking?

51

In addition, in learnerlearner interaction, feedback providers may not always be able to offer completely target-like feedback. Thus, recasts and explicit corrections were further coded as targetlike and non-target-like. It is important to acknowledge that recasts vary in explicitness depending on how they are delivered (e.g., intonation), and learners may not always perceive implicit feedback as such, or even as feedback at all (e.g., Egi, 2007). In other words, the illocutionary force of feedback from the learners perspective may not agree with the feedback providers intention. Nonetheless, researchers have classied feedback based primarily on its linguistic property and from the feedback providers perspective. This study followed R. Elliss (2007b) discussion of the explicitness of feedback, where provision of a L2 model that containing a clear indication of error making (e.g., no, thats not right) or metalinguistic information was considered explicit, and bare provision of a model was not. In addition to feedback, instances of modied output were coded. Following Shehadehs (1999) schema, responses to feedback were considered to be modied output if the learner made a change to their incorrect production of the targeted forms following recasts and explicit corrections of those forms. Modied output included learner responses in the form of repeating the model provided (as in Example 2 and Example 3) or modifying the incorrectly produced target forms in another way. If the turn following a feedback turn did not include a modication to the original utterance including the target structure, it was considered as no modied output. This included turns where the learner repeated their original utterance, simply acknowledged the feedback, or ignored/rejected the feedback and continued the topic.2 Because learners receive feedback and produce modied output on forms they have not yet fully mastered, modied output may not always be in the direction of the target. Modied output that resulted in target-like production (as in Example 2 and Example 3) was coded as target-like modied output. Modied output that did not result in target-like production was coded as nontarget-like modied output. Twenty percent of the

52
TABLE 1 Recasts and Explicit Corrections by Linguistic Type Past Tense Recasts N mean range N mean range N mean range 92 (57%) 2.19 09 70 (43%) 1.67 012 162 (100%) 3.86 021

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

Locatives 127 (55%) 3.02 07 106 (45%) 2.52 010 233 (100%) 5.54 014

Total 219 (55%) 5.21 012 176 (45%) 4.19 014 395 (100%) 9.40 021

Explicit Correction

Total

Note. 2 = .202, p > .05.

interaction data were coded separately by one of the researchers and an independent coder, with 91% agreement found. The 9% of the data for which agreement was not obtained was excluded from the analysis. In contrast to NSlearner interactions, in a learnerlearner interaction, a learner might both provide feedback to their interlocutor and receive feedback from their interlocutor. Because the current study examines the effect of receiving feedback on learning, for all analyses, statistics involving feedback are based on the feedback an individual learner received during the treatment sessions (which is then correlated to individual gain scores). Similarly, for each learner, their individual production of modied output in response to feedback (not the total amount of modied output produced by the dyad) was the basis of analysis of modied output and learning. RESULTS This section rst provides descriptive statistics for the interaction data and then reports ndings

regarding the relationships between feedback, modied output, and L2 acquisition. For each of the target forms, the mean amount of recasts and explicit correction for each of the 39 treatment group participants was calculated. Descriptive statistics for these are summarized in Table 1. Overall, 395 instances of input-providing feedback occurred during the learnerlearner task interactions. As shown in Table 1, learners tended to provide slightly more implicit feedback, though there was a wide range in the provision of both feedback types. There were 162 instances of the total feedback directed at past tense, with relatively more feedback directed at locatives (233 instances).3 For both of the target forms, there was a tendency to produce slightly more implicit feedback than explicit feedback. Table 2 summarizes the provision of targetlike feedback. Of the 395 total instances of feedback, 266 (67%) were target-like. The proportion of target-like feedback was similar for both recasts (65%) and explicit corrections (70%). A similar pattern was observed also when recasts and explicit corrections were examined by

TABLE 2 Target-Like Recasts and Explicit Corrections by Linguistic Type Target-Like Past Tense Recasts N mean range N mean range N mean range 57/92 (62%) 1.36 05 46/70 (66%) 1.10 012 103/162 (64%) 2.46 016 Target-Like Locatives 85/127 (67%) 2.02 06 78/106 (73%) 1.86 09 163/233 (70%) 3.88 010 Total 142/219 (65%) 3.38 08 124/176 (70%) 2.96 012 266/395 (67%) 6.34 016

Explicit Correction

Total

Note. 2 = 1.67, p > .05.

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi

TABLE 3 Modied Output Following Recasts and Explicit Corrections Modied Output Following Recasts N mean range N mean range N mean range Past Tense Modied Output 34/92 (37%) .81 05 39/70 (56%) .93 010 73/162 (45%) 1.74 013 Locatives Modied Output 73/127 (57%) 1.74 05 64/106 (60%) 1.52 06 137/233 (59%) 3.26 09

53

Total Modied Output 107/219 (49%) 2.55 08 103/176 (59%) 2.45 010 210/395 (53%) 5.00 013

Explicit Correction

Total

Note. 2 = 6.08, p > .05.

linguistic type, with small percentage differences for both past tense (recasts, 62%; explicit corrections, 66%) and locatives (recasts, 67%; explicit corrections, 73%). The amount of modied output produced following implicit and explicit feedback was also calculated. This information is displayed in Table 3. About half of the feedback (53%) was followed by modied output. Explicit correction led to a higher rate of modied output (59%) than recasts (49%). This overall pattern holds true also when results are examined by linguistic type. In terms of target-like modied output, only 126 instances of feedback (32%) led to targetlike modied output. Information on target-like modied output is summarized in Table 4. Here, recasts and explicit correction led to repair at the same rate (32%). For locatives, target-like modied output occurred following 39% of recasts and 36% of explicit correction moves. For past tense, target-like modied output occurred less frequently, following only 23% of recasts and 26% of explicit corrections.

As discussed in the method, feedback on past tense was separated into feedback on regular and irregular past tense forms. These data are displayed in Table 5. When the data are segregated by regular and irregular verbs, there are very few tokens of feedback and modied output. Overall, explicit correction was used more frequently than recasts with irregular verbs (53% of feedback on irregular verbs), while recasts were used more frequently with regular verbs (65% of feedback on regular verbs). For both regular and irregular verbs, learners were also more likely to modify their output following explicit corrections (58% for regular, 54% for irregular) than following recasts (40% for regular, 31% of irregular). When desegregated by both type of feedback and type of verb morphology, tokens of targetlike modied output are too few for meaningful analysis. Correlation analysis was used to determine whether there was a relationship between the amount of feedback provided to the learners and gain scores on oral tests and GJTs (research

TABLE 4 Target-Like Modied Output Following Recasts and Explicit Corrections TL Modied Output Following Recasts N mean range N mean range N mean range Past Tense TL Modied Output 21/92 (23%) .50 03 18/70 (26%) .43 03 39/162 (24%) .93 04 Locatives TL Modied Output 49/127 (39%) 1.17 03 38/106 (36%) .90 04 87/233 (37%) 2.07 05 Total TL Modied Output 70/219 (32%) 1.67 05 56/176 (32%) 1.33 04 126/395 (32%) 3.00 06

Explicit Correction

Total

Note . 2 = .57, p > .05, TL = target-like.

54
TABLE 5 Regular and Irregular Past Tense Feedback and Modied Output

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

Recasts Regular Past Irregular Past Feedback N mean range N mean range N mean range N mean range 57 1.36 06 35/57 (61%) .83 04 23/57 (40%) .55 05 13/57 (23%) .31 02 35 .83 03 22/35 (63%) .52 03 11/35 (31%) .26 01 8/35 (23%) .19 01

Explicit Correction Regular Past Irregular Past 31 .74 04 20/31 (65%) .48 04 18/31 (58%) .43 03 9/31 (29%) .21 02 39 .93 011 26/39 (67%) .62 011 21/39 (54%) .50 09 9/39 (23%) .21 02

Target-Like Feedback

Modied Output

Target-Like Modied Output

question 1), and whether there was a relationship between the amount of modied output and their gain 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) measures are displayed in Table 6 (gain scores displayed here are means of individual gain scores; individual gain scores were used in the inferential analysis). Blanks in the table indicate that

independent samples t-tests showed that the control and treatment groups did not have signicantly different gain scores on those measures. As explained above, only when signicant differences were found between the groups were tests included in this analysis.4 On the delayed oral posttest, there was a greater gain in past tense learning (regular and irregular combined) than locative learning. When regular and irregular verbs were compared, there was

TABLE 6 Gain Scores on Oral Tests and GJTs Past Tense Total Oral Test Scores Pre-M SD Post-M SD Delayed-M SD M SD M SD Pre-M SD Post-M SD Delayed-M SD M SD M SD 57.19 20.90 67.80 21.28 70.93 18.43 10.61 21.56 13.74 23.34 71.18 14.85 79.41 15.85 78.28 14.24 Regular Past 31.27 28.52 41.40 36.03 42.30 35.60 10.13 35.43 11.03 34.37 62.72 19.21 72.12 18.78 79.26 22.99 Irregular Past 57.09 20.65 68.23 22.05 78.88 16.07 11.14 25.60 21.79 21.91 57.27 25.67 60.91 23.48 69.47 19.29 Locatives 55.19 16.56 56.42 17.63 57.73 10.41

Oral Posttest Gain Oral Delayed Posttest Gain GJT Scores

2.54 13.46 44.90 17.22 54.21 17.36 52.27 23.74 9.31 20.38 7.37 20.02

GJ Posttest Gain GJ Delayed Posttest Gain

7.10 16.80

16.54 24.70

12.20 23.63

Note . GJT = grammaticality judgment test.

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi more improvement on irregular verbs in the oral tests at both immediate and delayed posttesting, but on regular verbs in the delayed GJ posttest. In each case, there also were large standard deviations among the participants, indicating a wide variation in gain scores. These may be partly due to negative gains measured for some learners. The amount of negative gain scores recorded on a test ranged from 5% (on the past tense oral delayed posttest gain) to 11% (on the past tense oral immediate posttest gain). Overall, the descriptive statistics suggest that, while most learners beneted from the treatments, the interactions were more effective in promoting learning for some learners than others. This spread in scores also indicates that these data are appropriate for analysis using associational analysis such as correlation or regression. Correlation, rather than regression, analysis was chosen because of the interdependence of the independent variables. In all analyses, instances of the target feature (e.g., target-like feedback, modied output) were used as the independent variables rather than proportions, to

55 ensure that the cumulative effect of exposure to feedback and production of modied output was examined, rather than response tendencies. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 7 (past tense) and Table 8 (locatives). For targetlike modied output, correlation was performed only for total past tense scores because the frequency of target-like modied output following regular and irregular verbs was too low for the analysis to be meaningful. Table 7 reveals very few signicant correlations between the interactional processes examined here and learning. No signicant relationship was found between the provision of recasts and learning on any of the post-treatment measures regardless of the well-formedness of the recasts. However, the production of modied output following recasts (regular past tense) and target-like modied output following recasts (total past tense) were moderately correlated to gains on the GJT at the delayed posttest. For explicit corrections, there was a signicant negative correlation between explicit corrections

TABLE 7 Learning of Past Tense Following Recasts and Explicit Correction Regular Oral Post Recasts TL Recasts Recast MO Recast TL MO EC TL EC EC MO EC TL MO .05 .10 .13 .16 .05 .08 Oral Delay .13 .19 .23 .15 .17 .23 GJT Delay .24 .31 .38* .22 .35 .01 Oral Post .29 .12 .02 .43* .28 .17 Irregular Oral Delay .14 .12 .15 .23 .24 .20 GJT Delay .05 .02 .13 .16 .23 .09 Oral Post .16 .01 .10 .18 .12 .09 .20 .04 Past Tense Total Oral Delay .14 .21 .01 .18 .16 .05 .26 .24 GJT Delay .25 .41 .29 .48* .23 .25 .18 .24

Note . delay = delayed posttest gain, EC = explicit correction, GJT = grammaticality judgment test, MO = modied output, post = posttest gain, TL = target-like, * = p < .05. TABLE 8 Learning of Locatives Following Recasts and Explicit Correction Oral Delay Recasts TL Recasts Recast MO Recast TL MO EC TL EC EC MO EC TL MO .46* .37 .31 .15 .28 .36 .15 .18 GJT Post .24 .26 .22 .26 .15 .15 .06 .10 GJT Delay .21 .23 .05 .18 .16 .25 .27 .04

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

56 (irregular past tense) and gains on the oral posttest. In other words, a greater number of explicit corrections on irregular past tense led to lower levels of learning than a smaller number of explicit corrections. There were no signicant relationships between modied output or target-like modied output following explicit corrections and learning for past tense. Similar to the analysis for past tense, there were few indications that the way that learners engaged in these interactions promoted their learning of locatives (Table 8). The provision of recasts was moderately correlated with gains on the oral test at the delayed posttest, but there were no other signicant relationships between the provision of feedback and learning. There were also no relationships between modied output or target-like modied output and learning of locatives. DISCUSSION The current study examined implicit and explicit input-providing feedback in learnerlearner interaction to determine whether the amount and type of feedback learners received, as well as their production of modied output in response to that feedback, inuenced their learning of two different linguistic targets. Research Question 1: Is there a relationship between the provision of recasts and explicit corrections in learnerlearner interactions and the acquisition of linguistic form? For the past tense, there was no evidence that either recasts or explicit corrections promoted learning of regular or irregular past tense. The only signicant correlation was between explicit correction of irregular verbs and the immediate oral posttest gains, and this was a negative correlation. This factor suggests that learners who received a greater number of explicit corrections on irregular past tense were less likely to improve their target-like use of irregular past tense verbs over the course of the treatments (some of these learners actually decreased their production of target-like irregular past tense). As noted in the coding section, not all of the feedback provided target-like models. For irregular verbs, 67% of explicit corrections and 63% of recasts were targetlike, meaning that in each case around a third of the feedback was not target-like. When nontarget-like feedback is removed from the analysis, there is no signicant negative relationship between target-like feedback and learning. It is pos-

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) sible then that non-target-like feedback may have prompted some interlanguage restructuring away from the target. It is also possible that the greater salience of explicit corrections made this effect more pronounced than recasts, particularly because this relationship was only found with irregular past tense, not regular past tense. Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) proposed the irregular past tense may be more perceptually salient than regular past tense. It is possible that a more salient correction strategy on a more perceptually salient form was needed for the feedback to be remembered beyond the interaction. It is also possible that explicit, perceptually salient feedback on past tense inuenced performance on the oral tests because learners tend to rely on irregular verbs to express temporality in oral performance (e.g., Hawkins & Liszka, 2003). Turning to the locatives, the only signicant correlation between feedback and learning was found between the provision of recasts and targetlike use of locatives in the delayed oral posttest. This nding contrasts with R. Ellis et al.s (2006) who found that explicit (metalinguistic) feedback promoted learning of implicit knowledge measured by an elicited oral imitation test at the delayed posttest. Regardless of feedback type, both the current study and R. Ellis et al. (2006) suggest that corrective feedback has an effect on the learning of implicit knowledge. However, it must be noted that overall, there was little relationship between the amount of feedback learners received and their subsequent gains. Of the analyses for feedback, only one correlation indicated that receiving more feedback promoted more learning. While the study was conducted in a short time frame, the learners were exposed to similar amounts of feedback as learners in prior studies of feedback, modied output, and development conducted in a NSlearner context (cf. Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003). It seems likely then that feedback may not play as important a role in learnerlearner interaction as it plays in NSlearner interactions. A possible explanation for this was raised by Toth (2008), in a study comparing teacher-led discourse to learnerled discourse. He found that learners gained less knowledge of the Spanish unaccusative particle se when completing tasks that required its use in the learner-led condition. Toth found that during the interaction, teachers focused the discussion of form narrowly on the linguistic target. Learners also focused on the linguistic target, but were equally likely to focus on lexical items or other morphosyntactic forms. While learners in the current study received feedback on the target forms,

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi feedback was also given on lexical items and on other forms, including articles, other verb tenses, and voice, and pronunciation. This wide range of feedback foci may have made the target forms less salient. Focusing on multiple forms at once may make it less likely for feedback to lead to measureable learning of a few preselected linguistic features like the target forms here. This may account for the differences between the ndings of this study, and that of Adams (2007), which used custom-made posttests on individual items where feedback was given, rather than tests targeting selected linguistic features, and found a strong relationship between feedback and learning. As noted in the methods, learners were not instructed to focus their attention on the target forms, nor indeed to focus on grammatical accuracy during the tasks. The wide range in the provision of feedback on the target forms, as well as the provision of feedback on forms beyond the targets points to the possibility that different learners may have approached the tasks differently. Some may have been focused only on communicating meaning, while others may have been more concerned with the accuracy of their output. This may imply that, in order for learnerlearner communicative tasks to promote learning of target forms, teachers may need to direct attention specically to those forms. Additionally, because learnerlearner interactions involve a peer relationship (rather than an expertnovice relationship as in teacherlearner interactions), it is possible that feedback is less likely to be perceived as corrective, and thus less likely to be used to rene interlanguage knowledge (e.g., Egi, 2007; Swain, 2005). This factor points to the possibility that the function of feedback may differ between teacherlearner and learnerlearner interactions. For example, in these data, explicit correction was often taken as a signal to discuss linguistic form rather than as feedback. In Example 4, an explicit correction turn on a locative by learner 2 begins an exchange where several possible solutions are considered and discarded. EXAMPLE 4 Discussion of Feedback Learner 1: Irene is sitting close to Glen. Learner 2: I think its beside . . . no Explicit correction Learner 1: no, beside no Learner 2: beside no Learner 1: no, its uh side here Learner 2: here here Learner 1: Irene is in front, Irene is . . . no Learner 2: between is, between the . . . Learner 1: next . . . to Glen

57

Learner 2s initial alternative form is considered but eventually rejected by the learners. After several exchanges, they agree on a target-like locative, next to and move on to the next description. Learner 2s feedback served then as a starting point for discussing a form, rather than as a nal word, as feedback from the expert (the teacher) might be considered. Unlike teacherlearner interactions, dyadic interactions are a two-sided learning process, and this may inuence the way feedback is perceived and processed. Sato and Lyster (2007) found that learners recognized differences between NSlearner and learnerlearner interactions in terms of their feedback giving behaviors, noting when interacting with another learner, they often asked one another questions because they felt more comfortable with each other and had more time to consider what they would say. However, positive evaluations of learnerlearner interactions as a feedback giving context may not translate directly into learning benets. Additionally, social relationships among peers may inuence the provision, perception, and acceptance of feedback (cf. Storch, 2002). Peer interlocutor feedback is based on peer interlanguage knowledge, which is not equivalent to NS knowledge. Although on the surface, the recasts and explicit corrections examined in this study are similar to those found in studies of NSlearner interaction, they are crucially different in the level of target language knowledge a learner can assume their interlocutor has. In NSlearner interactions, the learner may be more likely to assume that feedback is only given on non-target-like utterances, and that feedback presents target-like models. It is possible that learners are less likely to accept learner feedback than NS feedback, because they are less likely to assume that feedback from their peer is actually correct. Learners resisting feedback would complicate the relationship between feedback and learning. It is particularly important to note that resistance to feedback is not unfounded in the current data. Also, while not frequent, there are instances of both target-like and non-target-like utterances receiving miscorrections, as in Example 5. EXAMPLE 5 Miscorrections and Resistance Learner 1: Carl here

58 Learner 2: opposite, opposite, opposite Learner 1: okay and across Learner 2: opposite Learner 1: but you can say across Learner 2: across is no across is not to the, this action across is not we say, someone is there you are opposite but you dont say across some place Learner 1: across like I see Learner 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 this suggestion in turn 4, and gives (non-target-like) explicit metalinguistic feedback on the meanings of opposite and across in turn 6. Learner 2s hand gestures indicated that his denition for across was restricted to diagonal from. At the end of the exchange, Learner 1 chooses to move on (across like I see). Similar miscorrections have been noted by previous researchers of learnerlearner interactions and feedback as well, including Adams (2007), Porter (1986), and Mackey et al. (2003). Their presence suggests that the link between feedback and learning demonstrated in NSlearner studies may not apply directly to learnerlearner studies. Learning may not be closely related to the amount of feedback received either because that feedback may not be target-like, or because the learner is unsure whether or not his or her interlocutors feedback is target-like. Future research should consider learner perceptions of NS versus peer feedback in oral communication to determine whether peer feedback is perceived differently, and how that might affect learning outcomes. Overall, the ndings of this study do not point to a strong relationship between feedback and learning in learnerlearner interactions. This may indicate that the benets of learnerlearner interactions to language learning (as demonstrated by differences in performance between the treatment and control groups) are motivated by other aspects of interaction. Because learners had received prior instruction on these forms, it is possible that learnerlearner interaction on targeted tasks constituted a language practice opportunity that consolidated existing knowledge. It is also possible that social aspects of interaction, including the opportunity to engage in collaborative talk (e.g., Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002), promotes learning through peer interaction. These ndings suggest that aspects of NSlearner interaction that promote learning may not be as benecial in learnerlearner interactions.

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) Research Question 2: Is there a relationship between the production of modied output following recasts and explicit corrections in learnerlearner interactions and the acquisition of linguistic form? The production of modied output following recasts and explicit corrections was not related to any implicit or explicit learning measures for locatives. However, for regular past tense, modied output following recasts was signicantly related to learning by the delayed GJT. For the past tense overall, target-like modied output following recasts was signicantly correlated to learning by the delayed GJT. Again, it is interesting that modied output following implicit feedback was related to gains in explicit knowledge. These ndings are similar to those of Loewens (2004) study on the effectiveness of different types of incidental feedback in teacherlearner classroom discourse on learners explicit knowledge. Loewen found that uptake (where learners modied their utterances) and target-like uptake (where learners incorporated the feedback into their modied output) were the strongest predictors of successful completion of posttest items that were designed to test explicit knowledge. He suggested that this nding supports Swains (2000) contention that the process of producing modied output pushes learners to process language differently. It is possible that this processing impacts most strongly explicit knowledge, regardless of the explicitness of the feedback that preceded it. The act of modifying ones output might then serve to promote the conversion of the implicit knowledge into explicit one. This study lends some limited support for extending Swains proposals about modied output and learning to learnerlearner interaction. It should be remembered, however, as noted in prior studies of modied output and learning in NSlearner and learnerlearner contexts (cf. Loewen, 2004; McDonough, 2004; McDonough, 2005), that learning from modied output may not represent new linguistic knowledge, but rather a step in a gradual learning process. Forms that are modied are likely to be partially known, and modied output may be more related to control and accuracy than to new linguistic knowledge. In this respect, the denition of learning adopted by comparing pre and posttest means is necessarily broad. Future research on learner learner interactions might benet from a conversational analysis of microgenetic change in interaction, as suggested by Seedhouse (2004). As with the ndings on feedback, there were very few ndings linking modied output or more

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi target-like modied output to learning. It is possible that the connection between these could be stronger in a study examining output-prompting feedback, given that modied output following output-prompting requires learners to reprocess their language production, encouraging them to analyze the language more deeply (Lyster, 2004). Different tasks may prompt learners to provide feedback differently; a study with a different treatment design may be able to elicit enough implicit and explicit output-prompting feedback for comparison. It should also be noted that these ndings diverge from ndings in earlier studies of feedback in learnerlearner interactions, which have often found that learners use very limited, outputprompting feedback strategies (e.g., Pica, 1992) and that feedback in learnerlearner interactions was very rarely given explicitly, if it was given at all (e.g., Porter, 1986). This trend may be due to the fact that earlier studies of feedback in learner learner interaction used oral tasks, while this study used tasks with both oral and written components. Recent studies on interactions between learners have indicated that using writing/speaking tasks, rather than speaking tasks alone, increases the amount of focus on form (Adams, 2006) and inuences the way focus on form is carried out (Adams & Ross-Feldman, 2008). It is likely that including a writing component in the task may have promoted the greater use of feedback in these interactions, and particularly of explicit feedback.

59 In studies of learnerlearner, as opposed to NS learner, interaction, it is not possible to limit the type of feedback given to learners. Thus, the learners in this study were exposed to a mix of implicit and explicit feedback on the target forms. The previous discussion has shown relatively little relationship between the amount of input-providing feedback learners received, their production of modied output, and subsequent learning. Inputproviding feedback was chosen as the focus for this analysis because there was relatively little output-prompting feedback in this data. However, most of the learners in this study did not receive only implicit or explicit feedback, but rather were exposed to both. It is possible that the cumulative effect of feedback provided, rather than the explicitness of that feedback, promotes learning. Therefore, a post-hoc analysis of total provision of feedback, total production of modied output, and learning was conducted. The results for this analysis are listed in Table 9. For past tense, there was again little evidence that feedback was related to learning. Only one signicant correlation was found: a negative correlation between irregular past tense feedback and learning on the oral posttest. This result closely mirrors the nding for explicit corrections, discussed above, and is likely accounted for by the presence of the explicit corrections data in this correlation analysis. There were two signicant correlations in the analysis of total locatives feedback: a positive, moderate correlation

TABLE 9 Learning of Past Tense and Locatives Following Total Feedback Past Tense Regular Oral Post Total Feedback Total TL Feedback Total MO Total TL MO .10 .12 .06 Oral Delay .19 .22 .27 GJT Delay .08 .02 .28 Oral Post .47* .27 .17 Locatives Oral Delay Total Feedback Total TL Feedback Total MO Total TL MO .43* .43* .19 .18 GJT Post .24 .25 .11 .10 GJT Delay .01 .04 .05 .04 Irregular Oral Delay .23 .23 .16 GJT Delay .11 .14 .05 Past Tense Total Oral Post .15 .09 .10 .11 Oral Delay .16 .05 .18 .01 GJT Delay .29 .25 .24 .41

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

60 between feedback and learning measured by the oral delayed posttest, and a positive, moderate correlation between target-like feedback and learning measured by that same test. Recasts were signicantly positively correlated with the learning of locatives on the oral delayed posttest; while not signicant, the remaining feedback measures were also positively correlated with learning of the target locatives on the oral delayed posttest. Therefore, it is not surprising that the combination of these data would yield a signicant relationship. These data lend some support that feedback between learners can contribute to learning (cf. Adams, 2007) at least for locatives in the current data. Overall, however, the relative paucity of signicant ndings supports the interpretation that feedback and modied output may play a quite limited role in promoting learning in learnerlearner interactions. It should be noted that patterns of learning diverged across the target structures included in this study. This pattern may be related to the different nature of learning past tense (which is largely morphosyntax based) and learning locative constructions (which are more lexically based). It is likely that certain types of feedback are more effective for certain types of language forms. For example, prior NSlearner research has shown that recasts may be more likely to promote the learning of lexical items (e.g., Jeon, 2007), providing a possible explanation for the relationship found between the input-providing feedback in the current study and the learning of locatives measured by oral tests. However, these differences (particularly for the oral tests) may also be related to differences in the ways that these structures were measured: in relatively free production for past tense and relatively closed production for locatives. The effect of the provision of feedback on production may be more clearly measurable in a more closed production task. Additionally, the use of intact classes in this study meant that learners, while very similar in overall communicative ability, differed in terms of educational and linguistic backgrounds. These variables, and other differences among learners in terms of motivation and other affective factors, may have mediated the effectiveness of feedback and modied output for any one learner. IMPLICATIONS This study has important implications for both interaction theory and for classroom practice. In terms of interaction theory, this study provides a rst contrast of input-providing implicit and ex-

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) plicit feedback, and its impact on learning in the learnerlearner context. Our ndings build on prior research highlighting differences between NSlearner and learnerlearner interactions, indicating that some of the interactional processes that have been shown to promote learning in NSlearner interactions might play a different or less important role in learnerlearner interactions. It supports the ndings of Toth (2008) and Adams (2007) that have indicated that the differences between NSlearner and learnerlearner interactions found in descriptive studies (Gass & Varonis, 1985; Mackey et al., 2003; Pica et al., 1996) may inuence the way that these interactions promote learning. This nding strengthens the argument for considering learnerlearner interactions as signicantly different from NS learner interactions, and for continuing research to understand the learning opportunities unique to this context. Further research that connects individual learner characteristics, interactional processes, and learning in a variety of contexts is needed. A conversation analysis approach to understanding classroom interaction may be helpful to disentangle these complexities. For the classroom, these ndings also illustrate the importance of teacher input in interactionally based learning, suggesting that at least for certain linguistic targets, feedback in learnerlearner discourse may not strongly promote learning. It should be noted that different types of feedback and different effects for that feedback may be found using other communicative tasks, or among other learner populations. Long-term studies that follow learner experiences in communicative tasks over time may help elucidate the relationship between peer feedback, modied output, and learning. Likewise, a qualitative approach might be necessary to allow for more in-depth understanding of how different aspects of peer interaction are perceived by learners, and how these perceptions may shape learning opportunities in both NSlearner and learner learner interactions. Finally, in learnerlearner interactions, learners act as both providers and receivers of feedback. Future research could consider whether providing feedback to an interlocutor plays a role in learning through interaction. CONCLUSION The results of this study provide limited evidence for the effectiveness of feedback in learner learner interactions in promoting learning, and for a role of modied output following recasts in supporting gains in explicit knowledge.

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi However, direct connections between implicit feedback and implicit learning, and between explicit feedback and explicit learning were not strongly supported by these data. These data suggest a complex relationship between the explicitness of feedback and acquisition of different types of knowledge in learnerlearner interactions. These ndings also underscore the psychological complexity of feedback in learnerlearner interactions, implying that further research considering the learners perspective may build a better understanding of feedbacks function in learner learner discourse.
NOTES
1 Because intact classes were used in this study, it was not possible to more narrowly control the participant characteristics. While this limitation should be considered when applying the results to other research, it should be remembered that the use of intact classes increases the pedagogical authenticity of the research. 2 Prior studies of uptake and modied output (e.g., Lyster & Mori, 2006) have separated topic continuation from other instances where the feedback is not used in following turns. However, because these turns did not include modications to output and because there were a very small number of topic continuation turns, they were coded as nonmodication turns for the current study. 3 This may be related to the nature of the tasks the picture story task used to elicit past tense required students to use many other linguistic forms, and some pairs may have focused their attention on a wide range of forms, rather than narrowly on past tense. The relatively more close-ended locatives tasks may have oriented learners to focus more on this linguistic target. 4 Correlations carried out between nonsignicant test measures and feedback and modied output data resulted in no signicant ndings.

61
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research , 12 , 183210. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size ts all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 28 , 543574. Becker, A., & Carroll, M. (1997). The acquisition of spatial relations in a second language . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work. RELC Journal , 11(2), 4963. Carroll, M., & Becker, A. (1993). Reference to space in learner varieties. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 119149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 15 , 357386. Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners perceptions, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 249267). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 27 , 305 352. Ellis, R. (2004). The denition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning , 54 , 227 275. Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review , 19 , 1841. Ellis, R. (2007a). Corrective feedback in theory, research and practice . Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on ELT in China & the 1st Congress of Chinese Applied Linguistics. Ellis, R. (2007b). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. (pp. 339360). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge, and instruction. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing, and teaching (pp. 323). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modied input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Learning , 21, 285301. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 28 , 339368. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of

REFERENCES Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? ITL: International Review of Applied Linguistics , 152 , 734. Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benet from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. (pp. 2951). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing inuence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking/writing connections (pp. 243267). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

62
L2 grammar. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing, and teaching (pp. 303332). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 28 , 575 600. Garc a Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). Interaction among procient learners: Are input, feedback and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia Linguistica , 54 , 272 279. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 7186). New York: Platinum Press. Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning , 51, 150. Han, Y., & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language prociency. Language Teaching Research , 2 , 123. Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In R. v. Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. J. Towell (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 2144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 25 , 136. Jeon, S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. (pp. 379 403). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The inuence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology , 42 , 217 248. Kang, H. -S. (2009). The relative efcacy of explicit and implicit feedback in the learning of a lesscommonly-taught foreign language. IRAL , 47 , 303324. Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research , 14 , 359375. Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. R. (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs . Washington, DC: Georgetown University.

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 25 , 3763. Li, S. (2009). The differential effects of implicit and explicit feedback on second language (L2) learners at different prociency levels. Applied Language Learning , 19 , 5378. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning , 60 , 309365. Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning , 54 , 153188. Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 19 , 114. Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 361377). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413468). New York: Academic Press. Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal , 82 , 357371. Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 16 , 303 325. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 26 , 399432. Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning , 59 , 453 498. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 28 , 269300. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 19 , 3766. Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers intentions and learners perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching , 1, 129 152. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 28 , 169178. Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NSNNS and NNSNNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning , 53 , 3566.

Rebecca Adams, Ana Mar a Nuevo, and Takako Egi

McDonough, K. (2004). Learnerlearner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System , 32 , 207224. McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 27 , 79103. Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in a computer mediated L2 class. Language Learning & Technology, 9 , 2945. Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. English Language Teaching Journal , 47 , 203210. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36 , 573595. Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speakernon-native speaker negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 198237). Washington, DC: D. C. Heath. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985a). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115132). Rowley, MA: Newbury. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985b). The role of group work 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 does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30 , 5984. Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors inuencing the development of language prociency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45141). Adelaiade, New Zealand: National Curriculum Resource Center, AMEP. Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200222). Rowley, MA: Newbury. Salaberry, M. R. (2000). The acquisition of English past tense in an instructional setting. System , 28 , 135 152.

63
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modied output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor versus feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 123142). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning , 54 (s1), x300. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research , 8 , 263 300. Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers production of modied comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning , 49 , 627 675. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning , 52 , 119158. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97114). Oxford: Oxford 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., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 22 , 171185. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research , 37 , 285304. Toth, P. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based language instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning , 58 , 237283. Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work: Task-centered uency practice . New York: Cambridge University Press. Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers . New York: Cambridge University Press. Williams, J., & Evan, 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. 139155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.