Document Type : Research Paper


Department of English language Teaching, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.


This study investigated the impact of oral pushed output on the learning and retention of English perfect tenses. During the study, a pre-test was administered to 22 freshmen majoring in English translation. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Then, for six sessions both groups received explicit instructions on English perfect tenses. Every session, the experimental group recorded their oral performances on some picture description and translation tasks whose completion entailed the use of the instructed language form, while the control group merely did some conventional multiple choice tests covering the instructed structures. Following the treatment sessions, a post-test was run. Four weeks later, a delayed post-test was also administrated. Analysis of the data through repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) supported the facilitative effects of oral pushed output on the learning and retention of English perfect tenses. The finding of the study can have some implications for English Language Teaching (ELT) materials developers and practitioners.


Allan, D. (1992). Oxford placement test. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System, 21(4), 471-480. 
Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Azar, B. (1999). Understanding and using English grammar (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Birjandi, P., & Jafarpour, M, H. (2014). The impact of immediate and delayed written pushed output produced by pre-intermediate EFL learners in Iran on their acquisition of English verb tenses. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(6)1340-1347.
Bourdin, B. & Fayol, M. (2002). Even in adults, written production is still more costly than oral production. International Journal of Psychology, 37,  219-227.
Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Uso-Juan, & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 159-186). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Byrne, S. & Jones, C. (2014). Pushed and non-pushed speaking tasks in an EAP context: what are the benefits for linguistic processing and accuracy? Studies about Languages, 24, 87- 97.
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis.  Language Learning, 46, 529-555.
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
de la Fuente, M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 132-143). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Egi, T. (2008). Investigating stimulated recall as a cognitive measure: Reactivity and verbal reports in SLA research methodology. Language Awareness, 17(3), 212-228.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 91- 113.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339-361). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and pedagogy. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2014). Principles of instructed second language learning. In M. Celce Murcia, D.M., Brinton& M.A. Snow (Eds.), teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.31-45). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Farrokh, P. (2011). Analyzing of EFL learners' linguistic errors: Evidence from Iranian translation trainees. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(6), 676-680.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [+/- Here-and-Now]: Effects on L2 oral production. In M. del Pilar Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44-68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Grabowski, J. (2005). Speaking, writing, and memory span performance: Replicating the Bourdin and Fayol results on cognitive load in German children and adults. In L. Allal & J. Dolz, (Eds.), Proceedings writing 2004. Geneva (CH), Adcom Productions. [CD-ROM].
Hartmann, P., Esparza, P., & Zarian, A. (1984). Tense situations: Tenses in contrast and context. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168-196.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239-278.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language  acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 421-452.
Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60 (5), 587-609.
Jabbari, A. A. (2004). Temporal properties of Persian and English. Humanities, 11 (3), 31-54.
Jabbarpoor, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). Enhanced input, individual output, and collaborative output: Effects on the acquisition of the English subjunctive Mood. Revista Signos, 46(82), 213-235.
Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versis direct composition. Language Leaning, 142, 183- 215.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition:
(E) merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27- 48.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: from grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Thompson-Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D., Kuehn,T., &Haccius. M. (2002).  Helping students make appropriate verb tense-aspect choices. TESOL, 11(4), 3-9.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37-63.
Leeser, M. J. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 65, 195-220.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Lynch, T. (1997) Nudge, nudge: teacher intervention in task-based learner talk. ELT Journal, 51(4), 317-325.
Macaro, E., & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference? Language
Teaching Research, 10
(3), 297-327.
Mackey, A., & McDonough, K. (2000). Communicative tasks, conversational interaction and linguistic form: An empirical study of Thai. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 82-91.
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and
children’s L2 development. System, 30, 459-477.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and  second language development: Recasts, responses and red
herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
Mahmoudabadi, Z., Soleimani, H., Jafarigohar, M., & Iravani, H. (2015). The effect of sequence of output tasks on noticing vocabulary items and developing vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 5(1), 18-30.
Masny, D. (1991). Language learning and linguistic awareness: The relationship between proficiency and acceptability judgments in L2. In C. James & P. Garrett (Eds.), Language awareness in the classroom (pp. 290-304). London, UK: Longman.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learner's responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. NewYork, NY: Edward Arnold.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617-673.
Murray, D. E. (1992). Collaborative writing as a literacy event: Implications for ESL instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 100-117). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition.  ELT Journal, 47, 103-110.
Nation, I.S.P. (2011). Second language speaking. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.445-454). New York: Routledge.
Rezvani, E. (2011). The effect of output requirement on the acquisition of grammatical collocations by Iranian EFL learners.  Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 674-682.
Savignon, S. (2001). Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.13-28). Massachusetts, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,11, 129- 158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition . Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206 -226.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking  to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237- 326). Cambridge, UK: Newbury House.
Shehadeh, A. (2003). Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic  knowledge. System, 31, 155- 171
Shehadeh, A. (2005). Functions of learner output in language learning, language pedagogy, and classroom interaction. Journal of King Saud University (Languages and Translation), 17, 1‐15.
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies.  Language Learning, 63(2), 296–329.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Song, M. J., & Suh, B. R. (2008). The effect of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295-312.
Storch, N. (1998). A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52(4), 291-300.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and  comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second  language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, Massachusetts, MA: Newbury  House.
Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In B. Freed (Ed.), French language acquisition: Research and the classroom (pp. 91-103). Lexington, Massachusetts, MA: Heath.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian  Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain. M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, H. Widdowson & B. Seidelhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of  H.G. Widdowson (pp.125-144). Oxford, UK: 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. 471-484). London, UK: Routledge.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320- 337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring  task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Research pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 99-118). London, UK: Pearson  Education.
Tajeddin, Z., & Jabbarpoor, S. (2013). Individual and collaborative output tasks: Effects on the acquisition of English inversion structures. Research in Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 16-32.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62, 506–540.
Van Patten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
Wang, Q., & Castro, C.D. (2010).  Classroom interaction and language output. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 175-186.
Yuan F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.