Input Enhancement, Output And Noticing

This dissertation investigates the way focus on form is best promoted. The basic format of the treatment is instantiated in two types of tasks—text-reconstruction tasks and comprehension tasks.With the dissertation focusing on teenager learners of English as a foreign language, the author has conducted an analysis of"noticing", the rationale behind focus on form, and different types and extent of noticing that different linguistic aspects require, emphasizing that output is crucial to raising the quality and quantity of noticing. It is verified in the dissertation that output is a key factor of either the syntactic or lexical learning.The article includes seven chapters.Chapter one serves as an introduction to the investigation, touching upon the limitations of Krashen's input hypothesis and necessity of focus on form.Given that focus on form is necessary, an overview of the theories related to focus on form is provided in chapter two. What is more, with the research questions in the present study considered, the author remarks on these theories pointing out where the future researches should develop in respective fields.Besides the theoretical overview, an introduction is needed to the empirical studies in relevant fields. Chapter three gives a description of some empirical achievements in the relevant fields. Having commented on their merits, the author makes a judgment about their limitations, posing questions that have yet to be resolved.A syntactical experiment is reported in chapter four, which gives a detailed account of the experimental conditions, procedures, results and its discussions.The experimental conditions and procedures of the lexical experiment in chapter five are the replication of experiment one. A contrast and analysis are rendered of the results of the two experiments in this chapter.Chapter six deals with several pedagogical implications and some suggestions about how to carry out focus on form effectively. The limitations and future research directions of this study are also included in this chapter.The last chapter is a summary of the major findings in this investigation.The major findings are summarized as follows:In light of the experimental results,1. noticing differs in degree and quality. It is output that increases the extent and quality of noticing. This higher level of awareness and high quality of noticing are in good association with learning.2. the high communicative value that the lexical items have is the decisive factor in enhancing their salience. In other words, with the lexical items with high communicative value, there is no need for visual enhancement, while with those with low communicative value visual enhancement has its facilitative effect on drawing learners'attention to them.3. output and the subsequent feedback are major components of the most favorable learning environment. The incorrect hypotheses may arise in production. With timely feedback, learners get opportunities to examine their hypotheses. As a consequence, the wrong learning will be obviated. It is confirmed in the present experiments that output and the subsequent feedback are inseparable from each other. The"noticing the gap"function of output spurs learners to pay more attention to the relevant feedback so that the feedback is taken advantage of effectively. Without output, there is no full manifestation of the role of feedback.4. task instructions and demands make some particular linguistic forms salient directing learners'attention to these forms, and the conditions that the task is implemented have an impact on the way that learners process input.5. as is compared with comprehension tasks, problem-solving tasks raise the extent of awareness.6. little gains are made through the analyses at the level of comprehension.In addition, some findings derive from particular linguistic types.In terms of the syntactic learning, through experimental rehearsal, external input enhancement alone enables learners to be aware of the targeted rule as revealed in the posttest. Unfortunately, seeing that learning engages learner-internal factors, mere visual input enhancement does not stimulate the learner to further process the targeted forms, therefore, external enhancement alone is of little assistance to the learning of the targeted forms. However, when visual input enhancement is incorporated into the production activities, visual input enhancement effectively expedites hypothesis forming of the targeted rule on the part of the learner. As a result, learners perceive the rule utilizing much less time, which leaves them time to consciously rehearse the targeted rule grasping the targeted rule rapidly and solidly.Nevertheless, output alone disturbs the learner to concentrate on the targeted forms, which causes the learner to spend much more time finding the rule. In sum, within a set time, output learners receiving visual enhancement gain a higher control of the targeted rule than those lacking visual enhancement. It follows that learners'internal resources are not ample for a good learning of the targeted rule. A fast and good control of the targeted rule necessitates external help, which can increase the degree of explicitness of the targeted rule.In contrast to the syntactical learning, in terms of the lexical learning, self-initiated attention to the targeted words is of high quality. Hence, learners'internal resources that output triggers are sufficient to learn the meaning and use of the targeted content words. Visual enhancement plays little role in vocabulary learning.Further, in comparison with Izumi's experiment, when the output participants are delivered the enhanced materials in completing two reconstructions, the best learning obtains. Chances are that the strengthened enhancement promotes the salience of the targeted rule, which consequently stimulates further cognitive processing of the targeted rule on the part of the participants. Since learning involves learner-internal factors, the strengthened external enhancement alone is of no measurable effect for the learning of the targeted rule to happen. In lexical learning, whether mere visual enhancement or visual enhancement embedded in output is not a good facilitator of learning the targeted content words.In conclusion, either experimentally or theoretically, the dissertation brings forth new ideas. Experimentally, the author improves Izumi's experiment making it more effective.Theoretically, the dissertation empirically confirms that different types of linguistic aspects differ in attentional and learning demands, which has ever been mentioned by some scholars with few empirical researches conducted. In terms of a comparison between the syntactic learning and content words learning, only an idea arose in Izumi (2002)'s mind. No relevant researches have been done on it. In addition, the dissertation still presents an analysis of how different levels of awareness affect the noticing and learning of different linguistic aspects and what factors impact on different levels of awareness.Further, some pedagogical implications have been drawn in what follows.First, the dissertation lends empirical support to the position that the comprehensible input is not sufficient to raise the learner's language accuracy. The suggestion is that it is when learners are aware of the linguistic items or the linguistic items are activated, in particular, when learners notice the gap between the target language and the interlanguage that instructional intervention is most effective. It is still proposed that the instructional intervention should not be a stumbling block to language processing for meaning.Second, learnability and learners'long-term and short-term needs have to be considered when a form is chosen in focus-on-form instruction.Third, a well-designed task is a contribution to the noticing of the linguistic items with low communicative value. And a problem-solving task can effectively lead to the enhanced extent of noticing of the linguistic forms.However, when a problem-solving task is designed, the following points have to be noted:First, an overloading task will hamper learners'processing of the targeted forms. In view of the different attentional and learning demands of different linguistic aspects, the task should be designed to satisfy different needs.Third, the merits of feedback should be cherished. The timely feedback on production can play the role of examining and consolidating hypotheses. What is more, in light of the questionnaire, the timely feedback is well received by the participants. It is no exaggeration to claim that the appropriate feedback ensures successful learning. Further, when feedback is provided, the following advice is recommended.First, feedback had better enable the learner to notice the gap between the TL and IL. Self-discovered discrepancies are good reflections of the gap between their interlanguage and the TL because the process of identifying the mismatches gets their interlanguage system engaged. Thus, more input will feed into intake, which has more chance of entering the long-term memory due to the role of feedback. It is confirmed that how learners solve the problems they encounter in production associates with learning.Second, feedback must be explicit, with individual differences considered.Third, the emphasis is that either noticing or noticing the gap amounts to no learning. A good example is that mere visual enhancement is not contributive to learning effectively. Output gives rise to the deeper level of processing, which enhances the degree of noticing; the"noticing the gap"function of output allows the learner to seek appropriate alternatives actively for hypothesis testing or confirming.