The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
IDENTIFYING THE IMPACT OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNERS' RESPONSES ON ESL QUESTION DEVELOPMENT
Abstract
Swain's (1985, 1995, 2000) output hypothesis states that language production is facilitative of second language (L2) learning. An important component of the output hypothesis involves pushing learners to produce appropriate, accurate, and complex language (Swain, 1993), which may occur when interlocutors provide learners with negative feedback (Gass, 1997, 2003; Long, 1996; Mackey, in press; Pica, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). When learners modify their previous utterances in response to negative feedback, learning opportunities are created by both the provision of negative feedback and the production of modified output. Consequently, it is difficult to determine how these interactional features—alone or in combination—positively impact L2 development. The current study examines the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on English as a second language (ESL) question development, which is operationalized as stage advancement in Pienemann and Johnston's developmental sequence for ESL question formation (Pienemann & Johnston, 1987; Pienemann, Johnston, & Brindley, 1988). Thai English as a foreign language (EFL) learners (n = 60) carried out a series of communicative tasks with native English speakers in four conditions that provided different negative feedback and modified output opportunities and also completed four oral production tests over an 8-week period. Analysis of the treatment data identified the amount of modified output involving developmentally advanced question forms produced by the learners, and analysis of the test data revealed whether the learners' stage assignment changed over time. Logistic regression indicated that the only significant predictor of ESL question development was the production of modified output involving developmentally advanced question forms in response to negative feedback.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Morris, F. A., & Tarone, E. E. (2003) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00219 · Cited by 72
Retracted(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches
(2002) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-4047 · Cited by 5,638
Speaking: from intention to articulation
(1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-1947 · Cited by 5,003
Speaking: From Intention to Articulation
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001 · Cited by 4,804
The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition
Long, M. H. (1996) · Handbook of Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3 · Cited by 3,927
(1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,037
(2008) · The Concise Encyclopedia of Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-32833-1_5 · Cited by 2,670
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034 · Cited by 2,629 · cited 1×
“…for learners to produce modified output than forms of negative feedback that provide a reformulation, such as recasts ~Anton, 1999; Linnell, 1995; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Pica, 1988; Pica, Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler, 1989!+ The second variable manipulated in the treatment conditions was…”
BackgroundCognition and Second Language Instruction
(2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524780 · Cited by 1,737
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Swain, M. (1998).Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp.64–81).New York:Cambridge University Press.
- Swain, M. (1995).Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.),Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour ofH. G. Widdowson (pp.125–144).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
- Schmidt, R. (1995).Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on therole of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),Attention and awareness in foreign language learning(Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp.1–63).Honolulu:University of Hawai‘i Press.
- McDonough, K. (2001).Exploring the relationship between modified output and L2 learning.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Georgetown University,Washington, DC.
- Ellis, R. (1991).The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. In E. Sadtano (Ed.),Language acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom (pp.179–211).Singapore:Regional English Language Centre.
- Pica, T. , Kanagy, R. , & Falodun, J. (1993).Choosing and using communication tasks for second languageinstruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.),Tasks and second language learning: Integrating theory and practice(pp.9–34).Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
- Roberts, M. (1995).Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),Attention and awareness in foreign language learning(Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp.163–182).Honolulu:University of Hawai‘i Press.
- Pienemann, M. , & Johnston, M. (1987).Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.),Applying second language acquisition research (pp.45–141).Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.
- Mackey, A. (in press).Interaction and second language development: Perspectives from SLAresearch. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.),Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from linguisticsand psychology.New York:Cambridge University Press.
- Chaudron, C. (1986).Teachers' priorities in correcting learners' errors inFrench immersion classes. In R. R. Day (Ed.),“Talking to learn”: Conversation in second languageacquisition (pp.327–351).Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
- Doughty, C. , & Varela, E. (1998).Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp.129–154).New York:Cambridge University Press.
- Swain, M. (2000).The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition throughcollaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.),Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.97–114).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
- Bock, K. , & Levelt, W. (1994).Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.945–985).San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Cited by
The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis
Li, S. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x · Cited by 941
ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA: A Meta-Analysis
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990520 · Cited by 838
Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x · Cited by 746
Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second Language Learning
Mackey, A. (2006) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ami051 · Cited by 536
Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., Plonsky, L., Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410604651 · Cited by 533
Metadata
- Authors
- McDonough, K.
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-02-18
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 79-103
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W2132431806
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 76
- FWCI
- 74.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: IDENTIFYING THE IMPACT OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNERS' RESPONSES ON ESL QUESTION DEVELOPMENT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0272263105050047
- The paper
- McDonough, K. (2005). IDENTIFYING THE IMPACT OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNERS' RESPONSES ON ESL QUESTION DEVELOPMENT. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050047
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
