American Psychological Association 5th...

What is the Efficacy of Input Enhancement? 1

The Role of Input Enhancement in Second Language Learning

A Review Paper

Karla A. Shepherd

Georgia State University

May 2, 2015


Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………...3

Theoretical Frameworks….……………………………………………………………….…….3

Previous Research on Input Enhancement...………………………….....……………..….…..4

Typographical Enhancement ………..…….……………………………………………...6

Compound Input Enhancement…………..…..………..………………………………….6

Computerized Enhancement………...……………………………………………..……...8

Enhancement using Video……………………..……………………………………….....9

Enhancement using Adjuncts..……………….....................................……………….…10

Learner Self-Generated Noticing……………………………………………………...…11

Effects of Input Enhancement…………………………………………………………………13

Significant and Non-Significant Effect Findings…………..………………………….....15

Limitations or Gaps in the Research...………………………………………………………...15

Pedagogical Implications for Input Enhancement…………………………..……………….17

Future Research for Input Enhancement……………………………………………..………19

Conclusions of the Efficacy of Input Enhancement…………...……………………………...21

Lesson Plan……………………………………………………………………………………...21


Introduction

Input enhancement refers to textual or aural enhancements that are meant to induce

noticing in second language learners. The purpose of this paper is to show how effective input

enhancement is for L2 teaching and learning. The current paper includes the following sections:

Theoretical Frameworks, Previous Research on Input Enhancement (categorized by the type of

input enhancement methodology utilized), Effects of Input Enhancement, Limitations or Gaps in

the Research, Pedagogical Implications for Input Enhancement, Future Research for Input

Enhancement, Conclusions of the Efficacy of Input Enhancement, and a Lesson Plan section.

Based on the previous research, I have proposed a lesson plan which utilizes aural and oral input

enhancement techniques from (Jensen & Vither, 2003) to promote L2 learning.

Theoretical Frameworks

Schmidt (1990, 1993a, 1994, 1995, 2001) proposed the noticing hypothesis which states

that, awareness (through attention) is necessary for noticing, which in turn is essential for

learning. Underlying this hypothesis is the idea of noticing a gap (Gass, 2013, p.265). Noticing

the gap is defined by Gass (2013) as a learner’s detection of a difference between his/her

interlanguage system and what is said in the target language. Input enhancement is the

theoretical construct which makes noticing possible, because, input enhancement attempts to

make the input more salient in order to facilitate more detection, and consequently, more

learning. Input can be enhanced both visually and aurally. Typographical enhancement are in the

form of boldfacing, color-coding, underlining, and/or italicizing text. Input can also be enhanced

aurally, by repetition and/or speech rate reduction. Input can also be enhanced with computers

and video technologies as well as with the inclusion of corrective feedback. Heuristics, in the

form of adjuncts, were also used as a methodology for input enhancement in one of the studies


that was done. According to Gass (2013) Input enhancement has not been treated in precisely the

same way in all research, and, as a consequence, the results have not always been consistent. For

example, Jourdenais et. al (1995) found that noticing and learning resulted from textual

enhancement; Izumi (2002) found noticing, but not learning; and Leow (1997) found neither

noticing nor learning. Han et. al (2008), in their review of input-enhancement studies, found

numerous methodological differences among studies, making it difficult to state with certainty

the extent to which visual input enhancement facilitates learning. Nonetheless, they do note an

overall effect for input enhancement (p.416). (Gass, 2013) Further mentions the importance of

noticing. Underlying the importance of input enhancement is the concept of noticing. Given that

input enhancement is a means of drawing a learner’s attention to something, an underlying

assumption is that noticing is a prerequisite to processing of the input.

Previous Research on Input Enhancement

The following section reviews the research articles according to the type of input

enhancement methodology that was utilized. The research papers were broadly categorized

according to the type of input enhancement that was experimented with. The research revealed

six different input enhancement methodological practices which utilized typographical

enhancement, compound input enhancement which included embedded corrective feedback,

enhancement using video, enhancement with a heuristic, and enhancement which generated

learner self-noticing. These six different types were categorized as typographical input

enhancement, input enhancement plus corrective feedback, computerized input enhancement,

input enhancement using video, input enhancement using an adjunct, and input enhancement

using learner self-generated noticing.


Typographical input enhancement is an input enhancement technique that involves the

altering of text in order to make it more salient to the learner. This input enhancement type can

be achieved in a number of different ways; italicizing, boldfacing, underlining, through font size,

color and shape. This input enhancement strategy can be seen in the research of DeSantis (2008);

Lee (2007); Li (2012); Park (2011); and Simard (2009). Compound input enhancement was

researched by Berent et al. (2009) and Lyddon (2011) Compound input enhancement, in this

particular research, involved a typographic input enhancement in the form of a 3 letter code that

represented one of nine different grammatical structures along with some sort of embedded

corrective feedback in the form of the plus or minus symbol to signify whether or not the correct

grammatical structure was used. Berent et al. (2009). Lyddon (2001) used a computer program

for compound input enhancement with boldfacing which signified correct prepositions along

with the corrected, boldfaced preposition within syntax as corrective feedback. Computerized

input enhancement is a type of enhancement which allows learners access to computer

technology through which the learning process and methodologies are facilitated. The

researchers, Berent et al. (2009); Gascoigne (2006); Lyddon (2011); and Russel (2012) used

computerized input enhancement. Like computerized input enhancement, input enhancement

using video utilizes technology to deliver the input. This was done in the research by Fukuya, et

al. (2001) and Jensen, E., & Vinther, T. (2003). Adjuncts in the form of heuristics were used in

the research by Brantmeier et al. (2012). The heuristic embedded question words such as “What”

into the text in order to check for comprehension as a way to enhance the input by creating a

pause for learners to gauge their grasp of the input by reflecting on it. Learner self-generated

noticing was a technique used by Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008) where the learners were

asked to create their own textual input enhancement methodology to add marks to a text of what


they noticed in a foreign L2. Then, the learners were asked to explain what the marks meant and

why they placed them where they placed them in an attempt to understand the methodology

behind their thinking processes of what they noticed and why they noticed it.

Typographical Enhancement

According to Gass (2013) the concept of input enhancement highlights ways in which

input is made salient to learners (see Sharwood Smith, 1991). As Polio (2007) notes, Sharwood

Smith’s focus was not on what happened in the learners mind, but rather on what was done to the

input. Input takes place in a number of ways, through drawing attention to form (e.g., by coloring

or boldface in written input) (p.415). Textual enhancement was the most common form of input

enhancement that was found amongst the studies. This is because of the intended outcome of the

actual experimental tasks which had to do with writing.

Simard (2009) examined the effects of different textual input enhancements on the intake

of plural makers. There were 7 different types of textual enhancement formats that were tested.

The different textual enhancements that were tested included italics, underlining, boldface,

yellow highlighter, and capital letters. The remaining two variables that were tested were

whether or not the number of textual enhancement cues had an effect. The 6th tested group

included five typographic cues (italics, underlining, boldface, yellow highlighter, and capital

letters) and the 7th tested group included three typographic cues (boldface, capital letters, and

underlining).

Compound Input Enhancement

Researchers have utilized compound input enhancement techniques which can be used to

create more complex noticing opportunities. Berent et al. (2009) and Lyddon (2011) included

some type of compound enhancement. According to Berent et al. (2009) Simple enhancement


involves one enhancement strategy such as textual enhancement along with another attention

getting strategy such as corrective feedback to the learner. Sharwood Smith (1994) had described

textual enhancement as more of an implicit than an explicit device because its underlying

purpose might not be apparent to the learner. From that perspective and on the basis of the

research they reviewed, Han et al. (2008) concluded that compound enhancement is more

effective in inducing noticing. (p. 199)

Berent et al. (2009) carried out an essay coding procedure which used compound

enhancement, also referred to as combined enhancement, due to the essay coding procedure that

was used. There were 9 different grammatical structures that were represented by 9 different

codes. Each time the learner used the grammatical structure, the code designated for that

structure was used. If the grammatical structure was used incorrectly the code plus a – minus

sign was typed into the students essay. If the student used a grammatical structure correctly, the

code that they used was typed into their essay along with a + plus sign. These codes indicated

which grammatical structure was used and whether or not it was used correctly. Firstly, the code

for the grammatical structure was meant to call attention to the form that followed. Secondly, the

code carried meaning which defined, for the learner, which of the 9 designated grammatical

structures they had used. Thirdly, the plus or minus feature was used to give corrective feedback.

Lyddon (2011) used the factors target form enhancement and corrective feedback types

as treatments. Four different types of feedback were treated in this study, they were, meaning

focused focus on meaning (acceptance of grammatically inaccurate leaner utterances as long as

they were propositionally correct), implicit form focused (tacit disapproval of grammatically

inaccurate learner utterances via recasts), non-metalinguistic explicit form-focused (unequivocal

rejection of grammatically inaccurate learner utterances, followed by a model target language


utterance TLU) , and metalinguistic (unequivocal rejection of grammatically inaccurate learner

utterances, followed by presentation of the appropriate linguistic rule as well as a model TLU).

The combination of the variables of enhancement or not enhanced and the 4 different corrective

feedback types, created 8 different treatment conditions; one for each type of corrective feedback

with typographic enhancement and one for each type of corrective feedback without typographic

enhancement.

Computerized Enhancement

Previous studies also enhanced input in some way. The four studies that used computers

for enhanced input were Berent et al. (2009); Gascoigne (2006); Lyddon (2011); and Russel

(2012). Berent et al. (2009) used the computer as a medium for delivering the enhanced input as

well as the corrective feedback in their essay coding procedure. More specifically, it is the

medium through which the students produced output and the teachers gave input. Gascoigne

(2006) used the computer to allow typing for the participants who were in the experimental

group of the research study. This was in contrast to the control group which used pencil and

paper to attempt to recall the correct usage of diacritics. The experimental group was allowed to

use the computer for typing in the diacritics for both the priming stage as well as the recall stage

of the experiment whereas the control group was only allowed the traditional pencil and paper.

The computer created an explicit, kinesthetic enhancement of the input (diacritics) for the

learners of the experimental group due to the robust nature of the typing process.

Lyddon (2011) used computers as a medium for delivering computerized narratives of the

treatments and for delivering follow-up questions to check for learner comprehension of the

narrative. The computer program also provided the learners with the opportunity to produce the

target linguistic structures while controlling for the manner and the amount of exposure to the


target structures and correction of the learners’ output. Russell (2012) explored the computer for

Web-based instructional treatments using Blackboard Courseware Management System (CMS).

Four experimental groups were compared with traditional instruction (TI). The four comparison

groups were processing instruction with visual input enhancement, processing instruction

without visual input enhancement, structured input with visual input enhancement, and

structured input without visual input enhancement. A separate Web-based instructional package

was developed for each treatment group, and each Web-based package reflected a different

technique for teaching the target form. The two groups with the +VIE had computer animation.

The animation of the targeted forms was of a different color and it grew larger and then smaller

through a series of small pulses over a period of seven seconds in order to capture the learners

attention as they read input sentences online.

Enhancement using Video

There were two studies that used video as a medium of input enhancement, Fukuya, et al.

(2001) and Jensen & Vinther (2003). Fukuya, et al. (2001) used video for the treatments. The 48

minute video consisted of 30 scenarios that explored 3 different sociolinguistic variables; power,

distance, and imposition. Two versions of the treatment tape were created. The first version

(+explicit instruction, -input enhancement) was used for the Focus on FormS group. In this

version, the first 6-minute segment had explicit instruction on mitigators. In non-technical terms,

the presenter introduced the concepts of power, social distance, and imposition. A second

videotape version (-explicit instruction, +input enhancement) was made for the Focus on Form

group. The first 6-minute segment of the second version did not have explicit instruction on

mitigators. Instead, it had explicit instruction on listening comprehension strategies, which


remained general. The second version included onscreen white captions with the mitigators in

the requests highlighted in yellow.

Jensen & Vinther (2003) utilized video for showing dialogues from a NS-NS series called

Enredos. This study utilized phonological manipulation via oral repetition to enhance the aural

input. The treatments for the study were made using Enredos episodes 0-3. A version that was

slower than the original and a version that was faster than the original were created. The slow

version was recorded in a studio by the same actors and the actors were filmed close up while

speaking directly into the camera. All the material was transferred to a laser disk so that it could

be used with a computer program. The dialogue was fragmented so that learners could listen to it

over and over at different speeds. When explaining why the researcher chose to use video input

of this type, the researcher says the following, “Our rationale for using this kind of input was to

augment the NNS’s opportunities to encounter relevant linguistic material for hypothesis

formation, specifically with respect to phonological, grammatical, and pragmatic features that are

characteristic of spoken language.” (Jensen & Vinther, p.386, 2003) The author goes on to say

that, “In addition, it was assumed that this kind of input would enable them to notice the

structure of the exchanges, such as the frequent use of false starts, restarts, and repairs. Non-

reduced input of this kind is, without doubt, more laborious for the listeners to cope with than

traditional classroom input” (p.386). The researcher finishes the statement by making the claim

that, “Working with the kind of challenges that such input presents is also taken to be more

rewarding with respect to gap noticing and hypothesis formation” (p.386).

Enhancement using Adjuncts

Brantmeier et al. (2012) used adjuncts in the form of embedded ‘what’ questions as a

form of input enhancement in order to test their effects on comprehension. Two different


passages were adapted from a social psychology textbook. The passages consisted of

approximately 1200 words. Each passage was examined for variables of text difficulty, namely

passage length, total number of sentences, and total number of embedded clauses. Three different

versions of each passage were included and the participants received one of the three versions.

Version one included no inserted questions. Version two included inserted ‘what’ questions that

required learners to pause and consider, and Version three included inserted ‘what’ questions that

asked learners to pause and write. The embedded adjuncts, or ‘what’ questions instructed the

participants to either pause and consider or pause and write. In the first condition, the

participants thought about the answers to the questions whereas in the second condition,

participants wrote down the answers to the questions.

Learner Self-Generated Noticing

Han, Park, & Combs (2008) “Input salience, can be created by an outsider (e.g. a teacher)

or by an insider (i.e. the learner themselves). Learners possess their own natural learning and

processing mechanisms which can, in and of themselves, generate input enhancement—so-called

‘internally generated input enhancement’, which may or may not coincide with ‘externally

generated input enhancement’ (as by a teacher or researcher)” (p.598). The previous quote from

the Han et al. (2008) critical review article sums up the theoretical impetus for the Park (2011)

study. Park (2011) is somewhat different than the other studies that were reviewed in that the

study elicited learner-generated enhancement. This was done by asking the learners to mark the

L2 text that they worked with in some way. Learners used methods to mark the text such as

circling, underlining, and glossing in order to mark what they noticed in the texts that they were

given to analyze. After the learners completed the input marking task, the researches questioned

the learners as to why they marked the text in the areas that they had marked the text in. This was


an attempt to try to figure out why learners noticed what they noticed on their own without

external typographical enhancement such as textual enhancement. The input marking task was

combined with the variable of the learner’s native language, in this instance, 30 Japanese and 30

English L1 learners, attempting to notice items within an L2 passage in Korean. It was

questioned whether or not different L1 backgrounds would exhibit differential noticing behavior.

The other variables that were tested were the variables of some knowledge and zero knowledge of

the lexical items that were presented in the Korean passage and what learners notice in the input

and the factors that influence their noticing.

In order to measure the subject’s knowledge of the target form (a passage in Korean) with

[-L2] no knowledge of the L2 and [+L2] some knowledge of the L2, an input marking task

(where learners underlined, circled, glossing, etc.,), stimulated recall, and postexposure

questionnaire was implemented. The purpose of the two variables was to test what learners

noticed in the input and what factors influence their noticing. Results under the [-L2] condition

revealed that the verb-ending was the most noticed item for both groups. The English group

noticed periods and commas more. Japanese speakers noticed more graphemic elements that

resembled Kangi.

The simulated recall revealed that frequency was the most common reason for noticing

marking something in the input marking task. L1 knowledge/experience was the second, and

position in the sentence was the third most common reason for marking an item in the input

marking phase. Under the [+L2] condition, 90% marked the six pretaught items. Verb-ending,

like the zero knowledge condition was the most noticed aspect this was followed by punctuation

and then character sequence patterns for the English speakers. For the Japanese speakers the


second most commonly noticed aspect were character attributes which were followed by

dissimilarity to the speakers L1. In the simulated recall and postexposure questionnaire, the

Japanese speakers mentioned that they used the languages similarity to their L1 as an aspect for

noticing items in the L2.

Effects of Input Enhancement

Han et al. (2008) and Lee & Huang (2008), as well as Simard (2009), attempted to

provide a holistic view of the efficacy of input enhancement based off of the research that was

available to them at the time of their respective reviews. According to Simard (2009), the overall

effect of textual input enhancement is neither significant nor non-significant. Simard (2009)

results were determined as such because of the 11 studies that were reviewed, 4 of the studies

revealed a positive effect of TE, Shook (1994); Alanen (1995); Jourdenais et al. (1995); and Lee

(2007) and 2 other studies by White (1996) and Izumi (2003) demonstrated an effect on the

frequency of linguistic features use, but had no effect on accuracy, White (1996), while the other

study demonstrated that TE promoted noticing but had not effect on learning, Izumi (2003).

According to Han et. al (2008) who reviewed 21 studies involving textual input

enhancement said, “The available literature has provided conflicting findings on its efficacy.

Taken at face value, these findings may suggest that TE is either helpful or unhelpful” (p.612).

According to Wong (2003) as cited by Han et al. (2008) ‘The contribution of [TE] to SLA…is

presently not clear’ (Han et al., 2008, p.611). There are seven major issues that seem to be

limiting the generalizability of the findings and holding up further progress in the understanding

of the efficacy of TE for learning: (1) noticing and/or acquisition; (2) TE and comprehension; (3)

simultaneous or sequential processing; (4) TE and the nature of the enhanced form; (5) TE and

prior knowledge; (6) TE and input flood; and (7) TE and overuse. (Han et al., 2008, p.597)


Han et al (2008) goes on to mention that, “Although the jury is still out on the efficacy of

TE for learning, the research to date has nonetheless produced a number of valuable and,

importantly, testable insights, such as the following:

Simple enhancement is capable of inducing learner noticing of externally

enhanced forms in meaning-bearing input.

Whether or not it also leads to acquisition depends largely on whether the learner

has prior knowledge of the target form.

Learners may automatically notice forms that are meaningful.

Simple enhancement is more likely to induce learner noticing of the target form

when sequential to comprehension than when it is concurrent to comprehension.

Simple enhancement of a meaningful form contributes to comprehension.

Simple enhancement of a non-meaningful form does not hurt comprehension.

Simple enhancement is more effective if it draws focal rather than peripheral

attention.

Compound enhancement is more likely to induce deeper cognitive processing

than simple enhancement, possibly to the extent of engendering ‘overlearning’

(p.612)

According to Lee and Huang (2008) to date, accumulated findings and conclusions drawn

by individual researchers are elusive (p.308). Lee and Huang (2008) synthesized 16 primary

studies. The overall magnitude of visual input enhancement was addressed by calculating and

aggregating effect size d values (p.307). The main effect size calculation was based on the

contrast of the mean of the experimental group with that of the comparison group on immediate

posttest measures (p.320). The results indicated that second language readers provided with


enhancement-embedded texts barely outperformed those who were exposed to unenhanced texts

with the same target forms flooded in them (d=0.22) (p.307).

Significant and Non-Significant Effect Findings

Of the articles reviewed, those that revealed a significant effect were the studies done by

Berent et al. (2009); DeSantis (2008); Gascoigne (2006); Jensen (2003); Lee (2007); Li (2012);

and Simard (2009). Of the articles reviewed those that revealed a non-significant effect were the

studies done by Brantmeier (2012); Fukuya (2001); Lyddon (2011); and Russell (2012). As it

can be seen, 7 of the articles produced research results that were positive in regards to input

enhancements efficacy, while 4 of the articles produced research results that revealed non-

significant effects for input enhancement. Although the specific articles that were reviewed for

this paper revealed a positive trend for the efficacy of input enhancement, it still remains unclear

whether input enhancement is effective overall and it will require more research to determine

what forms of input enhancement are most effective as well as what grammatical features can or

cannot be enhanced in terms of saliency for the learners who encounter them.

Limitations or Gaps in the Research

After researching input enhancement, it seems that a major limitation has surfaced. This

limitation seems to resonate over all of the research that has been carried out on input

enhancement. The research gap that is spoken of has to do with the lack of longitudinal empirical

research on the topic of input enhancement. According to Wong (2005) as cited by Han et al.

(2008) “ Just as it is problematic to assume, without establishing, that TE draws learners’

attention to the target form, which, in turn, leads to further processing of it, it is equally

problematic to expect instant learning to arise from a single (typically, short) treatment session of

TE” (p.602) According to Han et al. (2008) SLA researchers at large have paid excessive lip


service to the need for carrying out longitudinal studies, but have not been able to break the

status quo (cf. Ortega and Iberri-Shea 2005). This is particularly surprising for research on the

effects of instruction, since it is here—more than anywhere else—where study after study has

conceded that its methodological shortcoming is the lack of a longitudinal perspective. (p. 613)

Han et al. (2008) goes on to mention that Non-longitudinal studies of effects of

instruction have an inherent bias in favor of explicit instruction. Explicit instruction is known to

be quick at provoking instant yet superficial changes (see, e.g. L White 1991) in behavior, in

contrast to implicit instruction whose impact on learning—especially in the domain of

morphosyntax—may take time to build and be felt (see, e.g. Robinson 1996; Hulstijin 1997;

Doughty 2004; Long 2007; Mackey and Goo 2007) (p.613)

Another limitation upon overviewing the empirical research comes from the testing

measures not coinciding with the instructional measures. According to Han et al. (2008) There is

an issue with what to expect of TE (p.601) Jourdenais et al. (1995) as cited by Han et al. (2008)

states that, ‘while [the] effectiveness of input enhancement has been evaluated in terms of

subsequent acquisition of the target forms, few attempts have been made to investigate whether

enhanced input is processed differently by learners’ (p.183) Similarly, Leow et al. (2003) pointed

out that ‘most of the studies… did not methodologically measure learners’ noticing while

exposed to the experimental L2 data’ (p.2) Hence, the issue of internal validity arises. (Han et al.

2008, p.601)

Han et al. (2008) goes on to cite Wong (2003) who says that, “one does not have to look

beyond the abstracts of the 21 studies to notice a test bias in assessing the efficacy of TE: The

majority of the studies solely invoked so-called acquisition measures for pre- and post-tests”

(p.601). Thus researchers have more or less equated the efficacy of TE with its ability to generate


acquisition, where acquisition is associated mainly with improved accuracy in production. This

methodological fallacy can be seen in Lee and Huang (2008) which illustrates that the majority

of the input enhancement measures, measure acquisition and not noticing.

Pedagogical Implications

Even though the overall efficacy of input enhancement has not been determined at this

time, it is still possible to talk about the significant effects of focus on form instruction that

involve input enhancement and use the methodological instruction that was involved in those

studies in order to make reasonable decisions about how to teach more effectively. For instance,

Berent et al. (2009) showed that the methodology of essay coding that involves compound input

enhancement produces a significant effect for noticing input. Although the essay coding was

used in order to communicate with deaf learners, I believe that this technique could be used

effectively with L2 learners because the enhancement and corrective feedback stand in for what

could be unnecessarily lengthy and confusing dialogues with L2 learners, in other words the

essay coding is a more efficient means of communicating.

Simard (2009) is special in that it compares the differential effects of enhancement

formats. This has pedagogical implications because it suggests that certain formats are more

salient to learners. This is important because it helps teachers know which forms to use when

they are preparing learner materials. Gascoigne (2006) showed that the use of computers can

increase salience. Some of this is due to the fact that using a computer requires extra attention to

what the user is doing because unlike pen and paper writing, the keyboard has to be attended to,

as well as the form of the word in order to create the proper meaning. This suggests that having

students do their work on a computer is beneficial for them when it comes to the recalling of the


correct spelling of words. Assignments could have a required typed component to increase

accurate recall in learners.

The literature also suggests that focus on form is better in some contexts than explicit

instruction such as Li (2012). It was hypothesized that the group of young adolescents that

received the enhanced instruction did better because in some cases, metapragmatic information

could create too much complexity and produce a negative effect. “On the one hand, these

learners were young adolescents, whose cognitive resources were limited. Even though explicit

metapragmatic information might have led to the highest level of noticing in the learners, it

would have intruded into their cognitive processes in learning, because rule statement had to be

referred to sociopragmatic factors, which interacted in a complex way to influence the requesting

behavior. This information complicated rather than explicated the learning task” (p.46). The

preceding statement suggests that different linguistic situations call for different instructional

measures which are very important when it comes to creating the most effective methodology

during different instructional situations.

Han et al. (2008) raised the issue of simultaneous processing creating a negative effect.

This has pedagogical implication that brings up the issue of processing instruction and the

information processing theory with states that (a) processing of information is selective; (b)

individuals can process two different types of information simultaneously and effectively only if

the processing of one of the information types is automatized and requires little, if any, conscious

attention; and (c) simultaneous processing of two different types of information that are not

automatized can lead to inadequate processing of either or both types of information and to a

‘trade-off effect’ (cf Skehan 1996; VanPatten 1996; Han and Peverly 2007; see, however,

Robinson 2003) as cited by (Han et al., 2008, p.604) The information processing theory, suggests


that an instructor could come up with some type of input enhancement format(s) that they use

each time for specific tasks with their students. Each enhancement format corresponds with a

code by having a meaning assigned to it. The learners are explicitly informed as to what each

code means. Over time, because the code keeps appearing in coursework, the meaning of the

codes becomes automatized and the learner has more attentional resources to devote to other

information processing that involves comprehension, for example.

Future Research on Input Enhancement

Han et al. (2008) mentioned that preliminary evidence from Overstreet (1998),

substantiated recently by Lee (2007), and suggested that input enhancement may detract from

learners’ attention to meaning. This should, accordingly, raise a red flag for future TE

researchers (p.603). Similarly, Lee and Huang (2008) said that although the reported effects of

VIE on learners’ meaning processing were not statistically significant in most of the studies, both

Lee (2007) and Overstreet (1998) reported that VIE might have observable debilitating effects on

the processing of meaning comprehension (p.317) Although both of the overview articles were

written in 2008, recently, in 2012, Brantmeier et al. (2012) supported the claim that input

enhancement could potentially disrupt comprehension by showing no effect and a negative affect

among two enhancement variables. A future study could focus on morphosyntactic instructional

and testing measures that are form focused instead of meaning and comprehension focused

because there seems to be a negative effect of input enhancement on comprehension. There

could also be future research studies that test whether or not input enhancement does indeed

effect the processing of meaning and comprehension.

In line with the previous research suggestion, the DeSantis (2008) and the Simard (2009)

looked at morphemes and the results of the studies produced a significant effect. There are not


many studies that have looked at morphemes and the effect of input enhancement on creating

salience. I believe that future research could reveal a particular niche that input enhancement is

suited for and that could be making morpheme endings more salient for learners and thus easier

to acquire. A future research study could also test different linguistic features in order to try to

figure out which features are more or less susceptible to enhancement. Han et al. (2008)

mentioned that the positive effects of TE, as reported in some of the studies, have in part derived

from the fact that the researchers happened to have chosen linguistic elements that are

susceptible to this type of intervention, although it is not entirely clear at the present time what

determines the susceptibility (cf. Wong 2003) (p.608). I think that the random choosing of

linguistic features by the researchers was due in part to practicality. As in some instances, the

linguistic features that were tested were the same features that the participant’s teachers were

going over at that point in the learners’ academics. Ideally, the researchers could deliberately

pick the linguistic features that they wish to test rather than the ones that just happen to be taught

at the moment of their study, this is key, because it has been suggested that some linguistic

features are more susceptible to input enhancement than are others.

Conclusions of the Efficacy of Input Enhancement

Although the research articles that were reviewed revealed an overall positive effect, it

was revealed that, based on Simard (2009), Han et al. (2008), and Lee & Huang (2008), that, the

overall effectiveness of input enhancement remains elusive due to many different

methodological variables that have yet to be tested. After reading the empirical research studies

and the critical overview articles, it has been concluded, that, overall, the efficacy of input

enhancement is undetermined at best while still having positive pedagogical implications at

worst. This was determined by tallying the research articles that were included in this paper.


Research in this field of study seems too close to call according to the data that was gathered,

therefore, the efficacy of input enhancement has been concluded as neither significant nor non-

significant and being both effective with some methodologies and linguistic features and not

effective in others.

Lesson Plan

The practice portion for this lesson plan was developed using the conceptual framework

from the book titled, Understanding the Courses We Teach (Murphy & Byrd, 2001). This

particular book was used as a resource to develop the practice portion because it provides a

collection of 18 authentic English language courses that were developed by those teachers who

taught them. This proved useful because of the insight it offered into the practice of developing

course work, especially as it pertained to developing a course around a theoretical framework

such as what has been done here. The book offers a way of organizing and conceptualizing

lesson planning in that each teacher answered the same series of questions in order to offer a

conceptual lens into the creation of the courses. For the purposes of the original book

contributors, there were 9 required and four optional questions for the contributors to use as

discussion prompts. The nine required questions from Murphy & Byrd’s (2001) book, have been

conceptualized and answered below. The questions which have been discussed below pertain to

the setting, conceptual underpinnings, goals and objectives, syllabus design, activity types,

learner’s roles, teacher’s roles, instructional materials, and lesson particulars. Because of the

nature of activity types using recurring themes in lessons, and this being only one lesson, it was

excluded from this discussion.

SETTING: The course takes place in the east coast of the United States, in California in a

public university. The group of high school graduates is between the ages of 17-25. They are all


migrants from Mexico who have lived in the states for at least a decade of their lives. They

possess a professional working proficiency of the English language. They are enrolled in an

English for Academic Purposes course that focuses on pronunciation proficiency. The students

hope to one day become undergraduate students of the university that they are taking preparatory

course work at.

CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS: The research study from which this lesson plan was

derived, experimented with exact repetition as well as speech rate reduction to produce

significant effects. The second language acquisition theoretical constructs for these input

enhancing methodologies are explained with the noticing hypothesis, and the interaction

hypothesis.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: As a result of the successful participation of the lesson, the

learners should be able to:

Phonologically decode or correctly render most of the syllables from a selection

of tongue twisters.

Have increased grammatical accuracy from the initial reading to the final reading

of a selection of tongue twisters.

Have increased comprehension of a selection of tongue twisters from the initial

reading to the final reading.

SYLLABUS DESIGN: Because this is a single lesson, not an entire course that was

designed, the design behind the lesson plan is discussed here instead. The design which was used

for the syllabus is the PPP, or presentation, practice, production model of foreign language

teaching which includes a language aim, or objective, that the students are required to fulfill by

the end of the lesson. In the PPP lesson plan, there are three stages. First the teacher presents the


target language. After which, as part of the second stage, students practice the new language

items. As can be seen in the lesson, there exist three separate types of practice: guided, focused,

and communicative. The third and last step of the PPP method is where the students use the

items that they have learned to produce new language items of their own. The tongue twisters

that are presented qualify this method of FLT as synthetic because they are pre-written by the

instructor.

LEARNERS’ ROLES: The learner serves as the operator and manipulator, the maker, and

the critiquer and instructor. The role of the operator comes from the focused practice part of the

lesson where the students have to manipulate the language according to the different language

frequency settings as well as the language repetition settings. The roles of the maker and the

designer come into the lesson plan during the guided practice stage where the students have to

record, and then upload tongue twisters. During the production phase of the lesson, the students

then fulfill the roles of the critiquer and instructor because the students have the opportunity to

listen to the work of their peers, and then, with a rubric, rate various different dimension in the

quality of it.

TEACHERS’ ROLES: Just as the roles of the learners are manifold, so are those of the

teacher. The difference between the two being that the roles of the teacher are constant

throughout the lesson, whereas the roles of the learners shift as they meet the objective of each

stage of the PPP. The teacher fulfills the role of the planner and guider, and the supplier of

resources. The role of the planner and guider are fulfilled throughout each of the PPP phases

because the teacher explains the contextual parameters within which the lesson plan operates and

then guides the students by giving examples of what is expected during each stage of the lesson.

The supplier of resources role also take place throughout the lesson plan because the instructor is


to be looked upon for the appropriate resources and supplies which are needed by the students to

obtain their objectives.

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS: This pronunciation course is meant to be a course that

is technologically progressive due to its use of software as a mechanism to help learners

manipulate the input autonomously. It is also meant to create an environment, through which

exposure to and critique of student works offers more exposure to the input, which in turn helps

students reach final pronunciation objectives and fluency of speech. There are many different

technological instructional materials that help to lead the learner toward the final production

objectives of this lesson plan. An app called Voice Dream is used, a computer software called

Audacity is used, and the internet platform and computer software, ITunes is also used. The

traditional instructional materials that are used are pre-written and recorded tongue twisters from

the instructor as well as word banks, rhyming dictionaries, and a rubric which is used for the

final critique of student work for their peer reviews.

LESSON PARTICULARS: This lesson, it is hoped, provides many different opportunities

for the Interlanguage of the non-native speakers to come into the forefront of the learner’s

attention through this oral/aural input enhancement methodology. I have provided, an imagined,

first person perspective of one of the students who has met all of the objectives from the

presentation and practice stage and has now reached the production stage where they have access

to a class repository of peer work. “Wow, look at all of my classmates work here! I am very

nervous to include my work here, but, I know that I must. I know Sarah, she always does so well

in class! I will click on her link and listen to how well she did. Oh, she did so well, I MUST make

sure that I do not embarrass myself. I will do this over and over until mine is as good as or

better than hers!” The purpose of this imagined dialogue is to show one aspect of the lesson plan


that touches on competition and how it can be used as a means to motivate students into trying

harder whereas they might not have done so had they not had access to the work of their peers to

compare their own efforts with. This is why, it is believed, that the peer review and the

repository of student work is not only beneficial for purposes of motivation but because it also

provides more exposure of input to students which will further increase their ability to acquire

more language skills.

Conclusion

Input enhancement provides teachers with very interesting tools at their disposal which

can be used in many different ways to create engaging lessons for students. Linguistic features

can be manipulated with typographical manipulation or phonological manipulation in order to

increase perceptibility, which also, it is hoped, would then lead to increased acquisition of the

linguistic features. Although it has been noted that there have been methodological testing

procedures that have been discordant with the actual testing of noticing, there is still enough

evidence to believe that input enhancement can improve noticing. Teachers need a repertoire of

techniques to draw from in order to keep the process of learning from becoming stagnant and the

potentiality of enhancing the input that they receive offers a promising future for learners,

especially because their senses are already very keen due to all of the visually and aurally

stimulating technology that they are exposed to on daily basis. To compete for leaner attention,

teachers need to be able to adapt and learn themselves as well as be willing to be innovative with

the teaching process.

Step Tasks (Teacher) Tasks (Pupils) Interaction Purpose

Teacher creates 5 tongue twisters

Students are introduced to

T-Ss Introduce students to new material and


Presentation that utilize each of the front vowels

/iy/, /I/, /ey/,/ɛ/, /æ/

Ex. The thirty-three giddy fleas skied from Milwaukee to Tallahassee and screamed yippee, whoopee, whee!

the Frontal vowels.

lesson and provide them with access to tongue twisters.

Teacher records themselves reading each of the tongue twisters.

Students are given tran-scriptions of the tongue twisters.

T-Ss

Focused Practice Teacher sends files with tongue twisters to stu-dents.

Students up-load files into the App, Voice Dream.

T-Ss, S-S Allow students to manipulate the language themselves with the technology.

Students lis-ten to each tongue twister at fast, slow, and slow speeds with the App by adjusting the speed in the program to speeds of 218 (fast) and 128 (slow) and listening to each tongue twister three times at F-S-S speeds.

Students open up Au-

S-S Students pay attention to the time with which they are allotted to replicate each sentence effectively.


dacity and record them-selves while replicating the speech as they have heard it in the App. F-S-S (exact rate re-duction and repetition in-put enhance-ment methodolo-gies)

Students send recordings to teacher for feedback.

Guided Practice Teacher Creates an ITunes podcast ac-count to be used for the class pod-cast uploads

Teacher distributes new tongue twisters.

Students re-ceive a new list of tongue twisters with some sort of increased complexity such as words with more syl-lables.

The tongue twisters are recorded at 218, 128, 128 or F-S-S

S-S Learner autonomy and creative, authentic use of language.

Communicative

Practice

Places students into pairs. Models how the pronunciation activity will work with a willing participant.

Students work with the target vowel sounds for the lesson.

Students pick from the list of vowels, which vowel they will pronounce, to their partner us-ing the F-S-S pattern.

Their partner

S-S Get students used to pronouncing and recognizing vowel sounds as well as their location on the vowel chart.


has to guess which vowel sound they are making.

They take turns doing this until they have pronounced each vowel from the list.

Production Provides link and access to class pod-cast account

Design rubric to grade student’s ex-amples.

Upload files as Mp3’s.

Peer review their class-mates work with the rubric.

Ss-Ss Allows students to have a useful critique as well as see how they rank among their peers according to professionalism in the creation of the podcast as well as execution of pronunciation objective.


References

Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. R., Schmitz, K. L., & Kenney, P. (2009). Visual Input Enhancement via

Essay Coding Results in Deaf Learners' Long-Term Retention of Improved English

Grammatical Knowledge. Journal Of Deaf Studies And Deaf Education, 14(2), 190-204.

Brantmeier, C., Callender, A., Yu, X., & McDaniel, M. (2012). Textual Enhancements and

Comprehension with Adult Readers of English in China. Reading In A Foreign

Language, 24(2), 158-185.

DeSantis, P. (2008). Text Enhancement and the Acquisition of English Verbal Inflection "-s" by

L1 Haitian Creole Speakers. Applied Language Learning, 18(1-2), 27-49.

Fukuya, Y. J., & Clark, M. K. (2001). A Comparison of Input Enhancement and Explicit

Instruction of Mitigators. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 10, 111-130.

Gascoigne, C. (2006). Explicit input enhancement: Effects on target and non-target aspects of

second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 551-564.

Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory

course. New York: Routledge.

Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual Enhancement of Input: Issues and

Possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597-618.

Jensen, E., & Vinther, T. (2003). Exact Repetition as Input Enhancement in Second

Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 53(3), 373-428.

Lee, S. (2007). Effects of Textual Enhancement and Topic Familiarity on Korean EFL

Students' Reading Comprehension and Learning of Passive Form. Language

Learning, 57(1), 87-118.


Lee, S., & Huang, H. (2008). Visual Input Enhancement and Grammar Learning: A meta-

analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307-331.

Li, Q. (2012). Effects of Instruction on Adolescent Beginners' Acquisition of Request

Modification. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers Of English To Speakers Of

Other Languages And Of Standard English As A Second Dialect, 46(1), 30-55.

Lyddon, P. A. (2011). The Efficacy of Corrective Feedback and Textual Enhancement in

Promoting the Acquisition of Grammatical Redundancies. Modern Language

Journal, 95104-129.

Murphy, J., and Byrd, P. (2001). Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on

English language teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Park, E. (2011). Learner-Generated Noticing of Written L2 Input: What Do Learners Notice and

Why?. Language Learning, 61(1), 146-186.

Russell, V. (2012). Learning Complex Grammar in the Virtual Classroom: A Comparison

of Processing Instruction, Structured Input, Computerized Visual Input Enhancement,

and Traditional Instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 42- 71.

Simard, D. (2009). Differential Effects of Textual Enhancement Formats on Intake.

System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics,

37(1), 124-135.

American Psychological Association 5th...

Documents

Transcript of American Psychological Association 5th...