Impact of Pushed Output on Students' Oral Production

Keywords: Pushed Output Hypothesis, Oral Production, Fluency, Accuracy, Semantic Processing, Syntactic Processing


With the advent of communicative methodologies, the promise to develop both fluency and accuracy was made as a goal for teaching and learning English as an international language. However, it did not happen (Richards, 2008). In an attempt to equalize students’ both semantic and syntactic competence, this study investigates the impact of Swain’s (1985) oral pushed output hypothesis on EFL intermediate students’ L2 oral production under a mixed method approach. The participants were 16 seventh grade EFL students from a private school in Ibagué, Colombia that were randomly assigned to an output and a non-output group. For five weeks, the output group underwent oral pushed output activities while the non-output group was merely exposed to comprehension activities. Quantitative and qualitative instruments to collect the data included pretest and posttest, audiorecordings, stimulated recalls, and interviews. Results revealed that although pushing students to produce meaningful oral output does not promote significant noticing of their linguistic problems in past narrative forms, students can modify more oral output through one-way pushed output activities than two-way activities and equalize their semantic and syntactic competence since they can engage in both processsings. Additionally, students perceived oral pushed output as an affectivity regulator in L2 oral production and as a trigger of exposure to L2 vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Kevin López, Universidad del Tolima, Colombia

holds a B.A. in English from Universidad del Tolima and is currently studying an M.A. in English Didactics in the same university. He has been teaching English for over five years. He is currently working as a part-time English teacher at a private English institute. His research interests include Social Justice in ELT, Identity, Multimodality and Foreign Language Didactics.


Al-Jamal, N. (2014). An Investigation of the Effect of Incorporating Input Enhancement in Dictogloss Tasks to Teach English Grammar on the Development of ESL Female Learners' Grammatical Awareness. Arab World English Journal. Retrieved from

Basterrechea, M., García, M., & Leeser, M. (2013). Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Portalinguarum, 22, 7-22. Retrieved from

Button, G., & Lee, J. (1987). Talk and social organisation. Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilangual Matters Ltd.

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.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (4thed.). Thousands Oak, CA: SAGE Publications.

De la Fuente, M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(1), 81-112.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(2), 285-301.

García Mayo, M. (2002). The effectiveness of two form‐focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156-175.

Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hayashi, N. (n.d.). Reexamining the effect of output on second language acquisition. 宮崎公立大学人文学部紀要, 24(1), 213-230. Retrieved from

Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push towards communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57-59). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.

Izumi, S., (2002). Output, Input Enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.

Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does Output Promote No¬ticing and Second Language Acquisition? Tesol Quarter¬ly, 34(2), 239-278.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. New York: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output. System, 26, 175-182. Retrieved from

Leeser, M. (2004). Learner Proficiency and Focus on Form during Collaborative Dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81.

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of Form, Recasts, and Explicit Correction in Relation to Error Types and Learner Repair in Immersion Classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), pp. 183-218.

Mamaghani, H., & Birjandi, P. (2017). Oral Pushed Output: The Route to Long-term Grammatical Accuracy. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(1), 57-84.doi: 10.22099/jtls.2017.4044

Marsh, D. & Langé, G. (2000). Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages. Retrieved from

McDougald, J. (2009). The state of language and content instruction in Colombia. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 2(2), 44-48.

Nation, I., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. New York: Routledge.

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47(3), 203-210.

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.

Richards, J. (2008). Growing up with TESOL. English Teaching Forum, 1, 2-10.

Sadeghi, A., & Edalati, V. (2014).The impact of pushed output on accuracy and fluency of Iranian EFL learners' speaking. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 51-72. Retrieved from

Shehadeh, A. (2003). Learner Output, Hypothesis Testing, and Internalizing Linguistic Knowledge. System, 31(2), 155-171.

Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Pretest-Posttest Designs. Retrieved from

Sitthitikul, P. (2017). The roles of output in second language acquisition: a case study of Thai learners. Catalyst, 15(1), 63-76. Retrieved from

Song, M., & Suh, B. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295-312.

Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2007). Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16(2), 131-46.

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). New York:

Newbury House Publishers.

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: just speaking and writing aren't enough. The Canadian modern language review, 50(1), 158-164. Retrieved from

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 64-81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 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). London: 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. (2002) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37(3&4), 285-304.

Uggen, M.S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 505-40.

How to Cite
López, K. (2020). Impact of Pushed Output on Students’ Oral Production. GIST – Education and Learning Research Journal, 20, 85-108.
Crossref Cited-by logo

More on this topic