The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Output Promote Noticing and Second Language Acquisition?
Abstract
Following an initial investigation (Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, & Fearnow, 1999), this study examines the noticing function of output (Swain, 1995, 1998), namely, the activity of producing the target language that may prompt L2 learners to recognize their linguistic problems and bring relevant aspects of the L2 to their attention. Before completing (a) essay-writing tasks and (b) text reconstruction tasks, two groups of ESL learners received the same input containing numerous examples of the target form, the past hypothetical conditional in English. One group was given opportunities for output whereas the other group engaged in comprehension-based activities. Although the results indicate no unique effects of output, extended opportunities to produce output and receive relevant input were found to be crucial in improving learners' use of the grammatical structure. A closer examination of the data suggested, however, that output did not always succeed in drawing the learners' attention to the target form, a phenomenon that seems related to both learner and linguistic factors. The essay-writing tasks were found to be much more susceptible to such individual variation than were the text reconstruction tasks. Further research is necessary to more precisely specify the noticing function of output and derive effective uses of output in L2 teaching.
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
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 5,435 · cited 2×
“Also necessary is an examination of some fundamental questions: What exactly is noticing? How, in psycholinguistic terms, is it relevant to learning? Does underlining (or any other claimed measure of noticing) really tap noticing in Schmidt's (1994) sense of the word, that is, both "necessary and sufficient .”
BackgroundFocus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology
Long, M. (1991) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon · Cited by 1,775 · cited 3×
“Various pedagogies have been proposed to help learners move forward in their interlanguage (IL) development, including consciousness-raising or input enhancement (Rutherford & Sharwood Smith, 1985; Sharwood Smith, 1991, 1993) and focus on form (Doughty & Williams, 1998a; Long, 1991).”
BackgroundInfluentialSWAIN, M., & LAPKIN, S. (1995) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371 · Cited by 1,407
Awareness and Second Language Acquisition
Schmidt, R. (1992) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190500002476 · Cited by 825
INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL
Mackey, A. (1999) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263199004027 · Cited by 772
The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren't Enough
Swain, M. (1993) · The Canadian Modern Language Review · doi:10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158 · Cited by 731
Spada, N. (1997) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444800012799 · Cited by 632
Doughty, C. (1991) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100010287 · Cited by 619
Planning and Interlanguage Variation
Crookes, G. (1989) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100008391 · Cited by 431
Communicating about Grammar: A Task-Based Approach
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587079 · Cited by 408
Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness1
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845 · Cited by 332
TESTING THE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS: Effects of Output on Noticing and Second Language Acquisition
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263199003034 · Cited by 194
Self-citation
Cited by
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
OUTPUT, INPUT ENHANCEMENT, AND THE NOTICING HYPOTHESIS: An Experimental Study on ESL Relativization
Izumi, S. (2002) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263102004023 · Cited by 524
Self-citationMixed methods research: toward new research designs in applied linguistics
Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12049.x · Cited by 183
Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production
Fukuta, J. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815570142 · Cited by 147
Sato, M. (2015) · International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2015-0016 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M.
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 239
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2057378650
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 44.46
- 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
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.