Language Teaching Research 8,1 (2004); pp.

55–81

Learner proficiency and focus on form

during collaborative dialogue
Michael J. Leeser Department of Spanish, Italian, &
Portuguese, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

One of the challenges in content-based instruction in second language

classrooms is how to focus on form in a way that is both effective and
appropriate. The use of collaborative tasks that push learners to
consciously reflect on their own language use (i.e., produce ‘language-
related episodes’) while conveying meaning has been proposed as one
way to accomplish this goal. Studies investigating the use of
collaborative tasks that encourage learners to produce language-related
episodes (LREs) have been shown to affect positively L2 development.
However, little is known about how the proficiency of each dyad
member affects how and how much dyads produce LREs during
collaborative tasks. Therefore, the study reported in this article
investigated how grouping learners by their relative proficiency
(high–high, high–low, or low–low) affected the amount, type (lexical or
grammatical) and outcome (correct, unresolved, or incorrect) of LREs
produced during a passage reconstruction task, completed by twenty-
one pairs of adult L2 Spanish learners from a content-based course. The
findings revealed that the proficiency of the dyad members affected
how much the dyads focused on form, the types of forms they focused
on as well as how successful they were at resolving the language
problems they encountered.

I Introduction: focus on form in content-based instruction

One of the challenges facing content-based instruction (CBI) in
second language (L2) classrooms is how to focus on form in a way
that is both effective and appropriate. Research on French
immersion programmes in Canada over the last two decades has

Address for correspondence: Michael J. Leeser, Department of Spanish, Italian, &

Portuguese, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 4080 Foreign Languages Building,
MC-176, 707 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA; e-mail: leeser@uiuc.edu

© Arnold 2004 10.1191/1362168804lr134oa

56 Learner proficiency and focus on form

revealed that, although learners in these programmes develop

native-like abilities in global comprehension, their production
skills, particularly with regard to accuracy in their use of
morphology and syntax, fall significantly below that of native
speakers (e.g., Genesee, 1987; Swain, 1985; Wesche, 1992). Similarly,
Pica (2002: 3) noted that although a consensus exists that content-
based approaches to language instruction promote L2 proficiency
and the learning of subject matter content, content-based classes
may not provide learners with the ‘kinds of input, feedback, and
production of output that learners need to assist their learning
beyond the areas of global L2 proficiency and skill application’. In
fact, studies investigating negotiation of meaning and/or focus on
form in post-secondary, content-based classes have found low
amounts of both (Musumeci, 1996; Pica, 2002).
Recent research on focus on form has sought ways to draw
learners’ attention to linguistic form, without isolating these forms
from their meaningful context (e.g., Doughty and Williams, 1998).
For example, Swain (1996, 1998) and Swain and Lapkin (1995,
1998, 2001), have investigated the use of close-ended information
exchanges such as jigsaw or dictogloss tasks, in which learners must
pool together their resources to reconstruct a scene or passage.
Much of their recent research has analysed ‘language-related
episodes’ (LREs) or segments of learner interaction in which
learners either talk about or question their own or others’ language
use within the context of carrying out a given task in the L2 (Swain,
1998; Swain and Lapkin, 1995, 1998, 2001; Williams, 1999, 2001).
More specifically, LREs include instances in which learners may
(a) question the meaning of a linguistic item; (b) question the
correctness of the spelling/pronunciation of a word; (c) question
the correctness of a grammatical form; or (d) implicitly or explicitly
correct their own or another’s usage of a word, form or structure
(see, e.g., Williams, 1999 for descriptions and examples of these
kinds of LREs). In addition, LREs may include the use of
metalinguistic terminology or the articulation of a rule; however,
in most cases they do not (Swain, 1998; Williams, 1999). LREs have
received considerable attention in focus on form research given
that this kind of attention to form ‘may serve the function of
helping students to understand the relationship between meaning,
forms, and function in a highly context-sensitive situation’ (Swain,
 Michael J. Leeser 57

1998: 69). Furthermore, these episodes may represent language

learning in progress (Donato, 1994; Swain, 1998; Swain and Lapkin,
1998). The present study examines the impact of L2 Spanish
learners’ proficiency on the amount, type and outcome of LREs
during a passage reconstruction (dictogloss) task in a content-
based course.

II Background
1 Language-related episodes and L2 development
A number of studies investigating the relationship between
language-related episodes and second language learning have
found that LREs positively affect L2 development. For example,
LaPierre (1994, reported in Swain, 1998) sought to address the
relationship between L2 learning and the LREs of grade 8 early
French immersion students in Canada. When learners correctly
solved a linguistic problem that occurred while reconstructing a
passage (dictogloss task), they also individually replied correctly to
79% of the items in dyad-specific post-tests that were administered
one week after completing the original task. In addition, in cases
where learners solved a problem incorrectly during the task,
approximately 70% of the answers to the corresponding items on
the post-test were also answered incorrectly. Similar results were
found when learners from this same population worked together
on a jigsaw task (Swain and Lapkin, 1998). As with the LaPierre
(1994) study, post-test items were developed that were based on
the LREs that occurred during the task. Although time on task
and number of LREs produced varied greatly among the dyads, a
significant, positive correlation was found between the post-test
score and the number of LREs produced.
In a study investigating the LREs of adult ESL learners, Williams
(2001) found that when LREs were solved correctly, these learners
correctly resolved between 40% and 94% of tailor-made test items
that had the same focus as the LREs. In another study examining
ESL learners, Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis (2002) found a
significant, positive relationship between the occurrence of
learners’ use of metalanguage (‘language used to analyse or
describe language’) and subsequent uptake. Taken together, the
findings of these studies on adolescent French immersion and adult
58 Learner proficiency and focus on form

ESL learners suggest that learner-initiated focus on form facilitates

L2 development and/or may be instances of L2 learning in
progress. Yet, Swain (1998) cautions that a task that elicits LREs
from one group of learners might not for another group due to
factors such as age, background or educational setting. Therefore,
the first question that was addressed in this study was whether
adult L2 Spanish learners would produce LREs during a
collaborative task in an intermediate-level, content-based course
of Spanish as a foreign language.
Although researchers have reported a relationship between
language-related episodes and L2 development, some have also
noted the variability among learners’ production of LREs. For
example, Swain and Lapkin (1998) reported that the number of
LREs produced during a jigsaw task ranged between 1 and 26.
Because the two students who were the focus of their study were
two higher proficiency students who produced a high number of
LREs, the researchers question what kinds of LREs student dyads
of varying proficiency levels might produce. In other words, how
many and what kind of LREs would be produced by dyads of two
higher proficiency students, a higher proficiency and a lower
proficiency student, and two lower proficiency students? The next
section, therefore, considers how the proficiency of dyad members
may impact the LREs they produce.

2 L2 proficiency and focus on form

Research has shown that learners generally perform better in
classroom tasks while working together than alone (e.g., Storch,
1999). Yet, is the benefit the same for learners of varying
proficiencies? The term ‘proficiency’ here refers to a learner’s
general language ability in speaking, listening, reading and/or
writing based on some kind of criteria or measure (see Hadley,
2001 for further discussion). Using learners’ TOEFL scores as a
proficiency measure, Yule and Macdonald (1990) investigated
interaction and negotiation of meaning within mixed proficiency
dyads during a task that presented specific referential conflicts. In
their study, higher and lower proficiency learners were paired
together that required one dyad member to take on a more
‘dominant’ role of providing map directions to another member
 Michael J. Leeser 59

who had a slightly different map. They found that when the higher
proficiency member had the more dominant ‘sender’ role, little
negotiation occurred. However, when the lower proficiency
member was responsible for giving directions, these dyads were
more likely to engage in negotiation meaning, interactive turn
taking, and they were more likely to solve referential conflicts to
successfully complete the task. Both proficiency and the role of the
learner affected the task outcome as well as the interaction
between dyad members.
How learners’ proficiency affects focus on form has been
considered in the literature on input processing and interaction.
For example, VanPatten’s model of input processing (1990, 1996,
2003) states that in communicative exchanges, learners process
language for meaning before anything else and that learners will
be able to process certain grammatical forms only when processing
the overall meaning of an utterance does not drain available
processing resources. The implication is that it should be easier for
more proficient learners to process grammatical form better than
less proficient learners given that learners with a higher proficiency
do not have to struggle as much with processing meaning during
communicative exchanges. Similarly, the literature on
‘developmental readiness’ suggests that learners will be able to
process and use particular grammatical forms only when they have
acquired less complex structures (see, e.g., Lightbown, 1998;
Mackey and Philp, 1998; Spada and Lightbown, 1993, 1999;
Williams and Evans, 1998). Again, the implication is that more
proficient learners should be developmentally more advanced to
notice and produce certain forms during communicative tasks. Less
proficient learners, in their struggle to grasp meaning, may have a
difficult time focusing on form at all. If they do, their focus may
be primarily on those linguistic elements that carry the most
meaning (i.e., content words or lexical items).
The research on input processing and interaction shows how
proficiency can affect learners’ processing of form in the input and
the emergence of forms and structures in communicative
exchanges. But how might it influence those instances in which
they explicitly talk about form (i.e., produce LREs), and sometimes
in the L1 (e.g., Swain and Lapkin, 2000)? It is important to note
that LREs are not decontextualized discussions about language;
60 Learner proficiency and focus on form

rather, they always occur within the context of a communicative

task in the L2. Furthermore, the episodes arise (whether in the L1
or the L2) when learners encounter problems stemming from their
ability to interpret and express meaning in the L2. As Swain (1998:
73) points out, ‘learners talk about what they need to talk about,
that is, those aspects of language about which they are not sure.
And that, in turn, will depend on their own current, internalized
state of knowledge about language and its use’ (emphasis in
original). If it is true, then, that LREs centre around ‘gaps’ or
‘holes’ in a learner’s interlanguage, it follows that a learner’s
proficiency will influence the types of LREs that arise while
engaged in a communicative task.
In examining how learner proficiency might influence language-
related episodes, Williams (1999, 2001) compared the number and
type of LREs of eight ESL learners from four different proficiency
(course) levels in a variety of activities. She found that the number
of LREs increased as the course level increased. That is, learners
in level one produced fewer LREs than learners in level two, who
produced fewer LREs than those in level three, and so on. Yet,
what happens with proficiency differences within the same class,
or even within a dyad? Because communicative approaches to
second language instruction involve collaborative group work, and
groups are often composed of learners of differing ability levels,
how might proficiency differences within one group affect how
much learners focus on form, what forms they focus on, and how
they resolve the language problems that arise as they work
together to complete a task? The next section describes a study
that investigated the following research questions:
1. Do adult, L2 learners of Spanish consciously focus on form (i.e.,
produce LREs) during a dictogloss task in a content-based
course?
2. If so, what is the focus of the LREs? Do learners primarily
focus on lexical or grammatical items?
3. What is the outcome of the LREs? That is, do learners resolve
correctly the problems and questions they encounter? Are they
left unresolved? Or are they resolved incorrectly?
4. Does the grouping of learners in terms of L2 proficiency
(higher proficiency–higher proficiency, higher proficiency–
 Michael J. Leeser 61

lower proficiency, lower proficiency–lower proficiency) affect

the number, type and outcome of LREs produced?

III The study

1 Context of the study
The experiment was carried out in four sections of a fourth
semester, university-level content-based Spanish American
Geography course. The focus of the course was the physical and
social geography of Latin America. Students in the course used an
authentic geography text used by middle school students in
Argentina, and class lectures and discussions revolved solely on the
course content. Although there was an on-line grammar
component to the course, the grammar was not integrated into
classroom discussion regarding course content. It was also
observed in these classrooms that, similar to Musumeci’s (1996)
and Pica’s (2002) findings, learners seldom spoke. Although they
were receiving a good deal of input from the readings and the
instructors’ lectures, opportunities for learners to produce oral
language were often restricted to answering instructors’ questions,
and these answers rarely went beyond one word replies.

2 Participants
The participants included 42 L2 Spanish learners from the fourth
semester content-based course. To determine the grouping of
learners according to proficiency level, the instructors of the course
were asked to rate each learner as either possessing higher or
lower proficiency relative to other students in the class.
Researchers investigating focus on form in SLA have determined
learners’ proficiency based on class level (Williams, 1999, 2001) or
according to an instructor rating of ‘overall ability’ (Swain and
Lapkin, 1998). Because the present study investigated learners of
one level (fourth semester Spanish), instructor ratings of overall
ability were used. Instructors were told specifically to rate the
learners’ overall Spanish proficiency and not their performance in
the geography class, given that learners could be relatively high in
terms of proficiency but perform below average in the course (and
vice versa). Once learners were classified according to proficiency,
62 Learner proficiency and focus on form

each learner was assigned to one of three types of dyads: a dyad

containing two higher proficiency learners (H–H); a dyad
containing one higher proficiency and one lower proficiency
learner (H–L); or a dyad containing two lower proficiency learners
(L–L). Because the interactions of these dyads would be recorded,
all but three of the dyads reported in this study consisted of one
female and one male in order to better identify the voices on the
tapes for transcription. There were a total of 21 dyads: eight dyads
of two higher proficiency learners, nine dyads of one higher and
one lower proficiency learner, and four dyads of two lower
proficiency learners. The low number of L–L dyads was not the
result of few learners being assigned a ‘lower proficiency’ rating.
Instead, it was the lower proficiency learners who were more likely
to not attend their classes on the days when the data were collected
for the study.

3 Task and procedure

The task used in this experiment was a dictogloss or passage
reconstruction task (Nabei, 1996; Wajnryb, 1990) and consists of a
series of stages. First, learners listen to a short, dense passage
during which they are instructed to listen only and not write
anything down. Secondly, they listen to the passage a second time
and may jot down notes, but not complete sentences. Thirdly,
working in pairs or small groups, learners pool together their notes
and attempt to reconstruct their own written version of the
passage. It is during this reconstruction phase that learners may
produce language-related episodes as they search for correct words
or forms they need in order to convey their intended meaning.
Previous studies such as LaPierre (1994), and Swain and Lapkin
(2001) have demonstrated that the dictogloss is an effective task
to encourage learners to focus on form. The passages constructed
for this study (Appendix A) followed the sample passages for low
intermediate learners presented in Wajnryb (1990).
The experiment was carried out in two sessions during the
learners’ normally scheduled classes. The first was a practice
session, the purpose of which was to familiarize learners with the
dictogloss task. During this session, learners were assigned to their
respective dyads and were instructed about the task they would be
 Michael J. Leeser 63

doing. They then listened to a previously recorded, short passage

(53 words) twice. After hearing the passage a second time, they
were told to write their own version of the passage based on their
notes and what they remembered. They were told that they should
say aloud everything that they were writing down and reflect aloud
as to why they chose certain forms over others.
One week later, the learners completed another dictogloss task
on a different passage (65 words), and this time their interactions
were recorded. This session consisted of several phases. First,
because the topic of the dictogloss passage dealt with material that
the learners were covering in their content-based course, the
researcher presented a five-minute review about population
movements in and out of Latin America. Next, in order to orient
the learners’ attention to the forms they would need to complete
the task, they were given a one-page handout reviewing the uses
of aspectual distinctions in Spanish (Appendix B). They were told
that they should study the handout carefully for 3 minutes because
the information contained on it would help them complete the
task. This handout was adapted from their on-line grammar lessons,
and it presented the most common uses of the Spanish preterit and
imperfect. Specifically, the handout covered only those uses of the
preterit and imperfect that the learners would encounter in the
dictogloss passage. After studying the handout for three minutes,
students were given the opportunity to ask questions. Afterwards,
following the procedure of Swain and Lapkin (1998), the learners
viewed a brief video of two L2 Spanish learners working together
on a similar passage reconstruction task to serve as a model for
the task they were about to do. The video also showed the two
learners talking through any linguistic difficulties they encountered
while they were writing out their own version of the passage.
(Because of time constraints during the practice session, the video
modelling the task was only shown during the target session.)
Following the video, the learners listened to a previously recorded
passage twice. Following the procedure described in Wajnryb
(1990), the participants took no notes the first time they heard the
passage. The second time, they were told to jot down notes, but not
complete sentences. After hearing the passage a second time, they
worked together in their respective pairs to construct their own
version of the text in a written paragraph. All learner interactions
 64 Learner proficiency and focus on form

were recorded during the reconstruction phase, which lasted no

longer than 10 minutes. When they finished, they turned in their
written passage and were free to leave.

4 Identification and coding of LREs

The recordings of each dyad’s reconstruction were transcribed in
order to identify the LREs for each group. Two raters
independently identified the LREs and coded them as either
having a lexical or grammatical focus. Inter-rater reliability was
94% on the identification of the lexical LREs and 91% for the
grammatical LREs. Differences between the two raters were
discussed and resolved. Although some variation exists among
researchers regarding what exactly constitutes lexical and
grammatical LREs, the coding procedure used in this study
followed that of Williams (1999), given that her study also
examined the relationship between L2 proficiency and LREs.
Lexical LREs, then, included those instances in which learners
focused on or sought the meaning of lexical items, including
prepositions. They also included talk about the spelling/
pronunciation of words. Example 1 displays a lexical LRE in which
one learner asks about the meaning of the Spanish word el
principio (‘the beginning’):
Example 1: Lexical LRE

S2: ¿Qué es . . . el principio?

[What is . . . ‘el principio’?]
S1: Ummm . . . .like empezar.
[Ummm . . . like to begin.]
S2: Hmmm?
S1: empezar . . . el principio . . . the beginning.
[to begin . . . the beginning . . . ‘the beginning’]

Grammatical LREs were those instances in which learners focused

on an aspect of Spanish morphology or syntax. In Example 2, one
learner uses the third-person plural, present-tense form of the verb
emigrar (‘to emigrate’), and the second student recasts the verb in
the preterit form:
 Michael J. Leeser 65

Example 2: Grammatical LRE

S1: Menos personas emigran a los Estados Unidos

[Fewer people emigrate to the United States]
S2: Sí. Emigraron.
[Yes. Emigrated]
S1: EmiGRARON?
[EmiGRATED?]
S2: Sí.
[Yes.]

In addition to coding the language-related episodes for the type

of focus, lexical or grammatical, LREs were also coded for their
outcome. Following Swain (1998), the LREs fell into one of three
possible outcomes: outcome 1 was that the problem or question
was solved correctly either by one learner’s self-correction or by
one learner answering or correcting the other (other correction).
In Example 3, a learner questions his use of the third-person plural,
preterit form of the verb emigrar, which is the correct form, and
then he decides to use it.
Example 3: Correctly resolved LRE (Outcome 1/Self-correction)

S: Muchos emi . . . emigraron? Emigraron a los Estados Unidos y España.

[Many emi . . . emigrated? Emigrated to the United States and Spain.]

Example 4 is also a correctly resolved LRE, but in this example,

a learner correctly answers another learner’s question about noun–
adjective agreement.
Example 4: Correctly resolved LRE (Outcome 1/Other correction)

S1: Ah . . . ¿muchOS personas o muchAS personas?

[Ah . . . many (masc. plural) persons or many (fem. plural) persons?]
S2: MuchAS personas.
[Many (fem. plural) persons.]
S1: Sí, muchas personas.
[Yes, many (fem. plural) persons.]

LREs that were left unresolved or abandoned (Example 5) were

coded as outcome 2. In Example 5, one learner asks what the verb
marcharse (‘to leave’) means and neither one knows the answer.
The problem is therefore left unresolved.
66 Learner proficiency and focus on form

Example 5: Unresolved LRE (Outcome 2)

S1: ¿Qué es marcharse?

[What is marcharse?]
S2: Hmmm?
S1: ¿Qué significa marcharse?
[What does marcharse mean?]
S2: Mmmm . . . no sé.
[Mmmm . . . I don’t know.]

LREs that were resolved incorrectly by one or both of the

learners were coded as outcome 3. In Example 6, these learners
needed to use either the third-person plural preterit form of
emigrar (to agree with muchos) or the third-person singular
preterit form (to agree with gente), but they settled on the first-
person singular form instead.
Example 6: Incorrectly resolved LRE (Outcome 3)

S2: Muchos . . . emigré? pretérito?

[Many . . . emigrated (first-person sing.) preterit?]
S1: Creo que emigré a Estados Unidos y España.
[I think that emigrated (first-person sing.) to the United States and
Spain.]
S2: Sí. emigré.
[Yes, emigrated (first-person sing.)]
S1: Emigré gente. emigré.
[emigrated (first-person sing.) people. Emigrated.]

IV Results
The first research question in this study addressed whether adult
L2 Spanish learners in the foreign language context would focus
on form during the dictogloss task. The findings presented in Table
1 displaying the average, total and type of LREs produced by the
21 dyads suggest that learners did indeed focus on form. Overall,
138 LREs were identified in the 21 transcriptions.
The second question asked whether the learners would focus
primarily on lexical or grammatical items. Table 1 indicates that
39.86% of the total LREs for all dyads were lexical. Over half of
these lexical LREs focused on a word’s meaning. Of the total
LREs, 60.14% had a grammatical focus. These grammatical LREs
dealt with a variety of forms, but problems with verb morphology
 Michael J. Leeser 67

Table 1 Summary of amount and types of LREs for all dyads

Type of LRE

Lexical Sum Mean SD % lex. LREs % total LREs

Word meaning 30 1.43 1.287 54.55 21.73

Prepositions 11 .52 .750 20.00 7.97
Spelling/pron. 14 .67 .730 25.45 10.14
Total lexical LREs 55 2.62 1.627 100.00 39.85

Grammatical Sum Mean SD % gram. LREs % total LREs

Noun/adj. agreement 12 .57 .746 14.46 8.70

Word order 4 .19 .512 4.82 2.90
Gender/use of articles 12 .57 .926 14.46 8.70
Sing. vs. pl. 6 .29 .644 7.23 4.35
S–V agreement 15 .71 .717 18.07 10.87
Copula choice 1 .05 .218 1.20 0.72
Tense choice 22 1.05 1.071 26.51 15.94
Aspect 10 .48 .814 12.05 7.25
Reflex pronoun 1 .05 .218 1.20 0.72
Total grammatical LREs 83 3.96 2.819 100.00 60.15

Total LREs 138 6.58 3.735 – 100.00

(subject–verb agreement, tense and aspect choice) were the focus

of more than half of the grammatical LREs.
The third research question asked how learners would resolve
the linguistic questions and problems they encountered during the
reconstruction phase of the dictogloss. Table 2 shows that 76.81%
of the linguistic questions or problems that learners encountered
while reconstructing the target passage were solved correctly. The
remaining LREs were split nearly evenly between those instances
in which learners left the episode unresolved (outcome 2)
(10.87%) or in which they resolved the episode incorrectly
(outcome 3) (12.32%).
The fourth research question addressed the impact of the
proficiency level of each learner in the dyad on the number, type
and outcome of their language-related episodes. Table 3 compares
the number of the different types of LREs, the percentage of the
type of LREs out of the total number, and the means and standard
deviations for each of the dyad groups. The table shows that as the
overall proficiency of the dyad decreases, so does the mean number
of total LREs (9.50 [H–H], 5.67 [H–L] and 3.00 [L–L]).
68 Learner proficiency and focus on form

Table 2 LRE outcomes (all dyads)

LRE outcome Sum Mean SD % total LREs

1 (correctly solved) 106 5.10 3.807 76.81

2 (unresolved) 15 .71 1.146 10.87
3 (incorrectly solved) 17 .81 .928 12.32
Total LREs 138 6.62 3.735 100.00

Table 3 Comparison of amount and type of LREs across dyads

Dyad type

LRE focus H–H (8 dyads) H–L (9 dyads) L–L (4 dyads)

Lexical
n 25 23 7
% 32.89 46.00 58.33
M 3.12 2.56 1.75
SD 2.10 1.24 1.26

Grammatical
n 51 27 5
% 67.11 54.00 41.67
M 6.38 3.00 1.25
SD 1.77 2.29 1.89

Total
n 76 50 12
% 100 100 100
M 9.50 5.67 3.00
SD 3.51 2.24 2.94

Note:
n = total number of LREs; % = percentage of total LREs.

Furthermore, the percentages of lexical and grammatical LREs

change according to the type of dyad. These trends are even more
apparent in Figure 1, which charts the means of each LRE type.
For the dyads with two higher proficiency learners, the focus of the
LREs is clearly more on grammatical than on lexical items
(67.11% grammatical, 32.89% lexical). These percentages level out
somewhat with the H–L dyads (54.00% grammatical, 46.00%
lexical). However, in the dyads with two lower proficiency learners,
most of their LREs focus on lexical items rather than grammatical
items (41.67% grammatical, 58.33% lexical).
The mean number of lexical and grammatical LREs were
 Michael J. Leeser 69

Lexical

Grammatical

Total

H–H H–L L–L

Figure 1 Comparison of number and types of LREs

submitted to a split-plot design ANOVA in order to determine

whether the ability of each type of dyad significantly affected the
type of LREs produced. The ANOVA revealed a significant main
effect for ability, F (2, 7.52), p = .0345, and type of LRE,
F (1, 5.23), p = .0042, as well as a significant interaction ability ´
type, F (2, 4.62), p = .0241. The Fisher’s PLSD revealed that the
H–H dyads produced significantly more grammatical than lexical
LREs (p = .0006); however, there were no significant differences
between the number of lexical and grammatical LREs produced
by either the H–L dyads or the L–L dyads. The Fisher’s PLSD also
revealed that the H–H dyads produced significantly more
grammatical LREs than either the H–L dyads (p = .0023) or the
L–Ldyads (p = .0002). Although the H–L dyads produced a higher
number of grammatical LREs than the L–L dyads, this difference
was not significant (p = .0891). The Fisher’s PLSD revealed no
significant differences among the groups regarding the mean
number of lexical LREs. These findings suggest that the grouping
of learners according to relative proficiency affects not only how
much each dyad focuses on form, but also the types of forms they
focus on.
The fourth research question also addressed the influence of
proficiency level on the outcome of the language-related episodes.
Table 4 displays the percentages of the LREs solved correctly
70 Learner proficiency and focus on form

(outcome 1), those left unresolved (outcome 2) and those that were
solved incorrectly (outcome 3) across the three dyad groups. Figure
2 charts these percentages for the three groups. Both Table 4 and
Figure 2 show the decline in the number of correctly resolved
LREs between the H–H dyads (88.16%) and the other two groups

Table 4 Comparison of LRE outcomes across dyads

Dyad type

LRE outcome H–H (8 dyads) H–L (9 dyads) L–L (4 dyads)

1 (correct)
n 67 32 7
% 88.16 64.00 58.33
M 8.38 3.67 1.75
SD 3.89 1.66 2.06

2 (unresolved)
n 3 8 4
% 3.95 16.00 33.33
M 0.38 0.89 1.00
SD 1.06 1.27 1.16

3 (incorrect)
n 6 10 1
% 7.89 20.00 8.34
M 0.75 1.11 0.25
SD 0.71 1.17 8.34

H–H H–L L–L

Figure 2 Comparison of LRE outcomes
 Michael J. Leeser 71

(64.00% [H–L], 58.33% [L–L]). Although all dyad groups correctly

resolved a majority of the language problems they encountered,
the dyads with two higher proficiency learners clearly solved more
of their LREs correctly than did the other dyad types. Table 4 and
Figure 2 also show that as the overall proficiency of the dyad
decreases, there is a steady increase in those LREs that are left
unresolved. Rarely did a dyad of two higher proficiency learners
abandon a question or problem they had during the reconstruction
phase. In only three instances (3.95%) of 76 LREs did learners in
this group leave a problem unresolved. However, the lower
proficiency learners left exactly one third (33.33%) of all their
episodes unresolved.
The outcome means were also submitted to a split-plot design
ANOVA to determine the effects of the dyad ability pairs on the
outcomes of the LREs. The ANOVA revealed significant effects
for outcome, F (2, 24.22), p < .0001, and ability ´ outcome F (4,
5.08), p = .0024. The Fisher’s PLSD revealed that the H–H dyads
correctly resolved their LREs significantly more often than they
left them unresolved (p < .0001) or solved them incorrectly (p <
.0001). Similarly, the H–L dyads also correctly resolved their LREs
significantly more often than they left them unresolved (p = .0005)
or resolved them incorrectly (p = .0021). No significant differences
were obtained between any of the outcomes for the L–L dyads.
The Fisher’s PLSD also revealed the following significant
differences: the H–H dyads correctly resolved their LREs more
often than either the H–L dyads (p = .0065) or the L–L dyads
(p < .0001), and the H–L dyads correctly resolved their LREs more
often than the L–L dyads (p = .0283). Therefore, it can be said that
proficiency of the dyad members, affects the outcome of the LREs
in addition to the amount and type of LREs produced.

V Discussion and conclusions

This study set out to examine whether L2 Spanish learners in a
content-based course would spontaneously focus on form (i.e.,
produce LREs) during a dictogloss task and whether the overall
Spanish proficiency of the dyad members would influence the
number, type and outcome of their LREs. The study revealed that
overall, the learners did focus on form, and that the proficiency of
72 Learner proficiency and focus on form

the learners in the dyad not only affected the amount and type
of form they focused on, but also how successful they were at
doing so.
The findings of this study support those of Williams (1999, 2001),
who also found a similar trend that learners in higher proficiency
levels produced more LREs than those at lower levels. In Williams’
studies, the language course in which the learners were enrolled
determined their proficiency level. In this study, however, we see
that differences in ability levels among learners enrolled in the
same course influence how often learners spontaneously focus on
form and which forms are the focus of their LREs. One
explanation for the variation in the number and type of LREs
according to proficiency could be related to the relative difference
in task demands for the higher and lower proficiency learners.
Although no measure of comprehension was used to determine
how much information individual learners understood from the
dictogloss passage, it could be the case that the lower proficiency
learners were struggling just to extract meaning from the passage.
Swain and Lapkin (in press) reported the difficulty that ‘average’
students encountered in comprehending the dictogloss passage
used in their study. It is therefore understandable that lower
proficiency learners would find it difficult to comprehend the
passage used in the present study. The few LREs that the low–low
pairs did produce focused on those elements that carry the most
meaning (i.e., lexical items). Whether the focus of their lexical
LREs involved a word’s meaning or preposition usage (72%) or
the spelling/pronunciation of a word (28%), their focus was
primarily on the most meaning-bearing elements of the dictogloss
passage, that is, on lexical, not grammatical items. For the more
proficient learners, it could be that the task demands of
comprehending the passage were much less, and therefore they
might have been able to direct more of their attention to
grammatical form as VanPatten (1990, 1996) has suggested.
Because no measure of comprehension was used, this line of
reasoning remains speculative. Future research could therefore
incorporate some measure of comprehension to examine how
comprehension of the dictogloss passage impacts the LREs
produced during the reconstruction phase.
If it is true that language-related episodes represent L2 learning
 Michael J. Leeser 73

in progress, as a number of researchers has suggested, then the

findings of this study have clear pedagogical implications regarding
the pairing of students for collaborative tasks. Although Storch
(1999) found that overall, learners performed better in tasks while
working together than alone, the findings of the present study,
along with Yule and Macdonald (1990), suggest that not all learners
benefit equally. In this study, higher proficiency learners benefited
from being paired with each other in terms of opportunities to
focus on form and how they were able to resolve the language
problems that arose. When these learners were not paired with
other higher proficiency learners, they had significantly fewer
opportunities to focus on form and correctly resolve their LREs.
Furthermore, a closer analysis of the data for the H–L pairs
revealed that the higher proficiency members of the dyads initiated
exactly one half (50%) of the LREs. Of those, the lower proficiency
members of the same dyads correctly solved only two LREs (8%),
both of which had a lexical focus. Could it be that the learners only
benefit (in terms of opportunities to focus on form) from certain
collaborative tasks when the other dyad member is of equal or
greater ability?
The results of this study also indicate that lower proficiency
learners who were paired with higher proficiency learners had
more opportunities to focus on form and see the resolution of the
LREs than the lower proficiency learners who were paired with
other lower proficiency learners. But did these learners truly
benefit from the higher proficiency learners? Although lower
proficiency learners were exposed to more grammatical LREs
when paired with a higher proficiency learner than with another
lower proficiency learner, it is important to remember that the
primary focus of the LREs of the L–L pairs was on lexical items.
If we consider the literature on developmental readiness, the
question arises whether the lower proficiency member of an H–L
dyad could actually appropriate and internalize morphosyntactic
knowledge, given their lower proficiency and that they often
struggled with lexical items during the task. In other words, are the
lower proficiency learners developmentally ready to benefit from
the grammatical LREs initiated and solved by the higher
proficiency members of the dyads?
An anonymous reviewer questioned whether arguments related
74 Learner proficiency and focus on form

to ‘readiness’ are appropriate given that LREs can involve explicit

information or correction (in the L1 or L2), whereas research
based on developmental readiness concerns learners’ (L2) implicit
knowledge. The point is well taken given that there is no evidence
supporting the notion that learners must be ‘developmentally
ready’ to gain metalinguistic, explict knowledge that LREs may
afford them. The issue, however, is not whether lower proficiency
learners are ‘ready’ to gain metalinguistic information, rather
whether they are ‘ready’ for this knowledge to help them if and
when they (a) subsequently encounter particular forms in the input
or (b) attempt to communicate meaning via a particular form
during interaction. A number of studies suggests that explicit
knowledge is useful and perhaps necessary to notice and acquire
grammatical features (Alanen, 1995; Doughty, 1991; Robinson,
1995). Furthermore, VanPatten (2000: 59) has suggested that the
‘metatalk’ that arises during LREs may assist a learner ‘to relate
a meaning to a form so that when it is encountered in the input,
the form has a better chance of being processed to form part of a
learner’s intake’. To determine whether learners of different
proficiencies benefit from their discussion of grammar problems,
future research could employ measures to examine if LREs
promote noticing of forms upon subsequent listening to the
dictogloss passage (see Izumi, 2002 regarding the effects of
learners’ written output on noticing and learning of forms when
reading texts). In addition, future research could also employ dyad
specific pretests and post-tests (e.g., Swain and Lapkin, 1998) or
analyse learners’ uptake of specific forms in subsequent tasks (e.g.,
Basturkmen et al., 2002; Donato, 1994; Storch, 2002) in order to
determine the relative benefits of LREs for different types of
learners.
With regard to the relative benefit to learners in mixed
proficiency dyads, it is also worthwhile to consider some
characteristics of the task used in this study. The dictogloss task
differs from other information exchange tasks in that there are no
predetermined ‘roles’ for each dyad member. In jigsaw, spot-the-
difference and map tasks, each learner has specific information that
the other learner does not. Therefore, in mixed proficiency dyads,
the higher proficiency learner needs the information from the
lower proficiency learner in order to complete the task (and vice
 Michael J. Leeser 75

versa). For this reason, Yule and Macdonald (1990) found that
when higher and lower proficiency learners had certain roles
within the task, more negotiation of meaning and turn taking took
place. With the dictogloss task used in this study, it is unlikely (but
not confirmed) that lower proficiency learners understood much
(if any) information from the passage that the higher proficiency
learners did not. If this is true, how can lower proficiency learners
contribute to discussions of form in a highly contextualized
situation when they barely understand the context (i.e., the
dictogloss passage)? It is not surprising, then, that in this study,
higher proficiency learners had to attempt to resolve themselves
92% of the LREs they initiated. In order to adequately address
the ‘usefulness’ of this task to lower proficiency learners, more
studies are needed that utilize more than one dictogloss passage.
Yet, might these learners contribute and benefit more (in terms of
focus on form) from other information gap tasks in which they
have information that the higher proficiency learner does not?
Although Swain and Lapkin (2001) found no significant
differences in the number and type of LREs between the dictogloss
and jigsaw tasks, perhaps it may be worthwhile to examine LREs
across different tasks involving mixed proficiency dyads.
A final point should be made here regarding the
operationalization of proficiency in this study. An anonymous
reviewer correctly pointed out that basing learners’ proficiency
solely on the instructors’ intuition renders the concept of
proficiency elusive. Although true, the use of instructor ratings in
the present study realistically reflects how L2 instructors may
organize learner pairs according to proficiency. That said, future
research could use a variety of more ‘objective’ or standardized
proficiency measures, in addition to instructors’ ratings, to perhaps
obtain a more ‘concrete’ evaluation of learners’ proficiency.
While we wait for future studies to provide further insight into
the issues raised above, the findings of this study suggest that for
this group of learners, the dictogloss task is one way in learner
pairs can direct their attention to form while conveying meaning,
but the proficiency of learners impacts not only how much they
are able to focus on form but also how well they resolve language
problems they encounter.
76 Learner proficiency and focus on form

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Diane Musumeci, Merrill Swain, Kim
McDonough, as well as Rod Ellis and two anonymous reviewers
for Language Teaching Research, for their helpful and insightful
comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Additionally, I wish to
thank Daryl Rodgers who helped with the coding of the data and
Susanne Aref of the Illinois Statistics Office for help with the
statistical procedures used in the study. Any errors and omissions
are, of course, my own.

VI References
Alanen, R. 1995: Input enhancement and rule presentation in second
language acquisition. In Schmidt, R.W., editor, Attention and
awareness in foreign language learning, Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 259–302.
Basturkmen, H., Lowen, S. and Ellis, R. 2002: Metalanguage in focus on
form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness 11:
1–13.
Donato, R. 1994: Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In
Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G., editors, Vygotskian approaches to second
language research, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 33–56.
Doughty, C. 1991: Second language instruction does make a difference:
evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 13: 431–69.
Doughty, C. and Williams, J. 1998: Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Genesee, F. 1987: Learning through two languages: studies of immersion
and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hadley, A. 2001: Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Izumi, S. 2002: Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis:
an experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 24: 541–77.
LaPierre, D. 1994: Language output in a cooperative learning setting:
determining its effects on second language learning. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lightbown, P. 1998: The importance of timing in focus on form. In
Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 177–96.
Mackey, A. and Philp, J. 1998: Conversational interaction and second
 Michael J. Leeser 77

language development: recasts, responses, and red herrings? The

Modern Language Journal 82: 338–56.
Musumeci, D. 1996: Teacher–learner negotiation in content-based
instruction: communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics
17: 286–325.
Nabei, T. 1996: Dictogloss: is it an effective language learning task?
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 12: 59–74.
Pica, T. 2002: Subject matter content: how does it assist the interactional
and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern
Language Journal 86: 1–19.
Robinson, P. 1995: Aptitude, awareness, and the fundamental similarity of
implicit and explicit second language learning. In Schmidt, R.W.,
editor, Attention and awareness in foreign language learning,
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 303–49.
Spada, N. and Lightbown, P. 1993: Instruction and the development of
questions in the L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 15: 205–21.
–––– 1999: Instruction, first language influence, and developmental
readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal
83: 1–22.
Storch, N. 1999: Are two heads better than one? Pair work and
grammatical accuracy. System 27: 363–74.
–––– 2002: Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning
52: 119–58.
Swain, M. 1985: Communicative competence: some roles of
comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its
development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C., editors, Input in second
language acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–53.
–––– 1995: Three functions of output in second language learning. In
Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B., editors, Principles and practice in
applied linguistics: studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 125–44.
–––– 1996: Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms:
research perspectives. Canadian Modern Language Review 52:
529–48.
–––– 1998: Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C.
and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64–81.
–––– 2000: French immersion research in Canada: recent contributions to
SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
20: 199–212.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1995: Problems in output and the cognitive
processes they generate: a step toward second language learning.
Applied Linguistics 16: 371–91.
78 Learner proficiency and focus on form

–––– 1998: Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent

French immersion students working together. The Modern
Language Journal 82: 320–37.
–––– 2000: Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first
language. Language Teaching Research 4: 251–74.
–––– 2001: Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring task
effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., editors, Researching
pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching, and testing, New
York: Longman, 99–118.
–––– in press: ‘Oh, I get it now!’ From production to comprehension in
second language learning. In Brinton, D.M. and Kagan, O., editors,
Heritage language acquisition: a new field emerging. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. 1990: Attending to form and content in the input: an
experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 12: 287–301.
–––– 1996: Input processing and grammar instruction. New York: Ablex.
–––– 2000: Processing instruction as form-meaning connections: issues in
theory and research. In Valdman, A. and Lee, J., editors, Form and
meaning: multiple perspectives, Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle,
43–68.
–––– 2003: Input processing in SLA. In VanPatten, B., editor, Processing
instruction: theory, research and commentary, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 5–31.
Wajnryb, R. 1990: Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wesche, M. 1992: French immersion graduates at university and beyond:
what difference has it made? In Alatis, J., editor, Georgetown
University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1992:
language, communication, and social meaning, Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, 208–40.
Williams, J. 1999: Learner-generated attention to form. Language
Learning 51: 303–46.
–––– 2001: The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System 29:
325–40.
Williams, J. and Evans, J. 1998: What kind of focus on which forms? In
Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 139–55.
Yule, G. and Macdonald, D. 1990: Resolving referential conflicts in L2
interaction: the effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language
Learning 40: 539–56.
 Michael J. Leeser 79

Appendix A
Dictogloss passage used for practice session
En 1976 hubo un terremoto desastroso en Guatemala que afectó a gran
parte de la población. Más de 22.000 personas murieron. La gente de clase
media y alta que vivía en sitios seguros fue apenas afectada. En cambio,
miles de indígenas mayas que tenían sus viviendas en tierras altas
perdieron sus casas y sus vidas.

In 1976 there was a disastrous earthquake in Guatemala that affected a

large part of the population. More than 22,000 people died. The middle
and upper classes who lived in secure places were hardly affected. However,
thousands of indigenous mayas who had their dwellings in the mountains
lost their homes and their lives.

Dictogloss passage used for recorded session

Los movimientos de población provocados por razones políticas o
económicas son muy importantes en Latinoamérica. Durante la primera
parte del siglo XX, Latinoamérica estaba muy poco poblada y millones
de personas emigraron allí. Pero al comienzo de los años sesenta, este
movimento migratorio cambió. Las personas que vivían en países
latinoamericanos empezaron a marcharse a vivir a otras naciones como
los Estados Unidos y España.

Population movements provoked by political and economic reasons are

very important in Latin America. During the first part of the twentieth
century, Latin America was not very populated and millions of people
migrated there. But at the beginning of the nineteen sixties, this migratory
movement changed. The people who were living in Latin American
countries began to go live in other countries like the United States and
Spain.
80 Learner proficiency and focus on form

Appendix B
REPASO DE GRAMÁTICA: EL PRETÉRIO Y EL IMPERFECTO
El pretérito se usa para enfatizar (emphasize) que la acción o el evento
que describe el verbo está terminada o completa, como en los siguientes
ejemplos:
• Juan nos visitó el mes pasado.
• Compré un carro nuevo.
• Murió el 15 de febrero.
• Tuve dos ofertas de trabajo.
• Hubo un huracán en el Caribe.
El imperfecto se usa para describir la acción o el evento que describe el
verbo como un proceso que ocurrió en el pasado. El comienzo y el final
no son importantes.
• En clase, escribía muy rápido.
• De niño miraba muchos dibujos animados (cartoons).
• Tenía dinero, pero no quería dárselo a nadie.
En una narración, podemos usar el pretérito y el imperfecto para
distinguir entre los verbos que describen las acciones (‘foregrounding’ =
pretérito) y los verbos que describen la escena (‘backgrounding’ =
imperfecto).

Ejemplos:
• Yo escuchaba a la profesora, cuando entró en la clase Jorge.
(describe la escena; imperfecto) (describe la acción; pretérito)
• Hacía buen tiempo, cuando salimos de viaje.
(describe la escena; imperfecto) (describe la acción; pretérito)
• Hubo un terremoto desastroso en Guatemala.
(describe la acción; pretérito)
• Había mucha gente en la fiesta.
(describe la escena; imperfecto)
Cuando se escribe una narración en el pasado, se puede hacer 2 preguntas
para decidir si se debe usar el pretérito o el imperfecto:
1. ¿Describe una acción o evento principal?
Sí = PRETERITO
2. ¿Describe información de fondo (background information)?
Sí = IMPERFECTO
(English translation of grammar hand-out)
 Michael J. Leeser 81

GRAMMAR REVIEW: THE PRETERIT AND THE IMPERFECT

The preterit is used to emphasize that the action or the event that the
verb describes has ended or is completed, as in the following examples:
• Juan visited us last month.
• I bought a new car.
• (S/he) died on February 15.
• I had two job offers.
• There was a hurricane in the Caribbean.
The imperfect is used to describe the action or event that the verb
describes as a process that occurred in the past. Its beginning and end are
not important.
• In class, he was writing very fast.
• As a child s/he used to watch/would watch many cartoons.
• He had money, but he wasn’t willing/didn’t want to give it to anyone.
In a narration, we can use the preterit and the imperfect to distinguish
between verbs that describe actions (‘foregrounding’ = preterit) and verbs
that describe the setting (‘backgrounding’ = imperfect).

Examples:
• I was listening to the professor when Jorge entered the class.
(describes the setting; imperfect) (describes the action, preterit)
• The weather was nice, when we left on a trip.
(describes the setting; imperfect) (describes the action; preterit)
• There was/occurred a disastrous earthquake in Guatemala.
(describes the action; preterit)
• There was a lot of people at the party.
(describes the setting; imperfect)
When writing a narrative in the past, we can ask two questions to decide
if the preterit or the imperfect should be used:
1. Does it describe an action or a principal event?
YES = PRETERIT
2. Does it describe background information?
YES = IMPERFECT