Abstract
The purpose of this article is to report the findings of a study the aim of which was to examine the potential effectiveness of visual input enhancement in teaching embedded questions. According to Sharwood Smith (1991, 1993, 1994), and in line with the tenets of the Noticing Hypothesis put forward by Schmidt (1990, 1995), augmenting the “noticeability” of input, for example by means of underlining or capitalizing certain language forms, increases the chance of its being turned into intake. The research project took the form of a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest design. The members of the experimental group were exposed to three treatment sessions during which the subjects read three texts in which the targeted structure was made salient by means of using three typographical cues, namely a different type of font, a different size of font, and boldfacing (an elaborate, non-explicit strategy (Sharwood Smith 1991). The students in the control group read the same texts, but the structure in focus was not highlighted in any way. The data-collection instruments enabled the researcher to measure the students’ implicit and explicit knowledge operationalised in terms of both production and reception. Despite being rather inconclusive, the results of the study suggest, among other things, that using textual enhancement is more likely to exert facilitative effects on implicit rather than explicit knowledge. Also, they raise numerous questions concerning the application of this kind of attention-drawing technique.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alanen, R. 1995. Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, ed. R. Schmidt, 259–302. Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i.
Burgess, J. and S. Etherington. 2002. Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit? System 30: 433–458.
Choi, S. 2005. Cognitive efficiency of animated pedagogical agents for learning English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Corder, S. P. 1976. The study of interlanguage. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Applied Linguistics. Munich: Hochschulverlag.
DeKeyser, R. 2001. Automaticity and automatization. In Cognition and second language instruction, ed. P. Robinson, 125–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In The handbook of second language acquisition, eds. C. Doughty and M. H. Long, 313–349. Oxford: Blackwell.
Doughty, C. J. 2003. Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation and enhancement. In The handbook of second language acquisition, eds. C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long, 256–310. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 141–172.
Ellis, R. 2008. Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18: 4–22.
Foster, J. and P. Coles. 1977. An experimental study of typographic cueing in printed materials. Ergonomics 20: 57–66.
Fowler, R. L. and A. S. Barker. 1974. Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text material. Journal of Applied Psychology 59: 358–364.
Gass, S. and A. Mackey. 2007. Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S., I. Svetics and S. Lemelin. 2003. Differential effects of attention. Language Learning 53: 497–545.
Han, Z., E. S. Park and C. Combs. 2008. Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics 8: 597–618.
Hershberger, W. A. and D. F. Terry. 1965. Typographical cueing in conventional and programmed texts. Journal of Applied Psychology 49: 55–60.
Hulstijn, J. H. and R. de Graaff. 1994. Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review 11: 97–112.
Jourdenais, R., O. Mitsuhiko, S. Stauffer, B. Boyson and C.J. Doughty. 1995. Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, ed. R. Schmidt, 183–216. Honoulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Lee, S. K. 2007. Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive voice. Language Learning 57: 87–118.
Leow, R. 1997. Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning 47: 467–505.
Leow, R. 2000. A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 557–584.
Leow, R. 2001. Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An on-line and off-line study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania 84: 496–509.
Long, M. H. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, eds. K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. and P. Robinson. 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, eds. C. J. Doughty and J. Williams, 15–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. 1998. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 48: 183–218.
Marks, M. B. 1966. Improve reading through better format. The Journal of Educational Research 60: 147–150.
Overstreet, M. 1998. Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Applied Linguistics 2: 229–258.
Park, E. S. 2004. Constraints of implicit focus on form: Insights from a study of input enhancement. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics 42. (http://www.tc.edu/tesolalwebjournal/Park.pdf).
Reber, A. S. 1989. Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology 118: 219–235.
Rosa, E. and M. O’Neill. 1999. Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 511–556.
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11: 129–158.
Schmidt, R. 1994. Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review 11: 11–26.
Schmidt, R. 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, ed. R. Schmidt, 1–64. Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i.
Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention. In Cognition and second language instruction, ed. P. Robinson, 3–32. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1991. Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research 7: 118–132.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 165–179.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1994. Second language learning: Theoretical foundations. New York: Longman.
Shook, D. 1999. What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning 10: 39–76.
Simard, D. 2009. Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System 37: 124–135.
Tomlin, R. and V. Villa. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 183–203.
Williams, J. and J. Evans. 1998. What kind of focus and on which forms? In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, eds. C.J. Doughty and J. Williams, 139–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. 2005. Input enhancement. From theory and research to the classroom. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pietrzykowska, A. (2011). The Influence of Visual Input Enhancement on the Acquisition of English Embedded Questions. In: Extending the Boundaries of Research on Second Language Learning and Teaching. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20141-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20141-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20140-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20141-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)