The Effects Of Different Input Enhancement Techniques On Learners' Noticing And Acquisition Of The Target Linguistic Form

Recently, researchers have begun to investigate the effects of manipulating and enhancing input, implicitly and explicitly, with the aim of increasing the usefulness for second language acquisition of the input available in the classroom. This study, based on Alanen(1995), Sayuri(2000) and Izumi(2002), aims to investigate the potentially facilitative effects of different types of Input Enhancement techniques on learners' noticing as well as acquisition of the target linguistic form—the English past hypothetical conditional. Specifically, the study challenges three research questions:1) Does enhanced input show greater power in drawing learners'attention to target linguistic form than unenhanced input? If so, which technique (Rule Instruction, Textual Enhancement or Reciting) performs best?2) Does enhanced input show greater power in promoting learners' immediate acquisition of target linguistic form than unenhanced input? If so, which technique performs best?3) Does enhanced input show greater power in promoting learners'final acquisition of target linguistic form than unenhanced input? If so, which technique performs best?These questions were examined in a controlled experimental study in which receiving of Rule Instruction, exposure to Textual Enhancement and requirement of Reciting were systematically varied.175 sophomores of non-English majors from 4 classes were involved into the experiment and they were randomly assigned as three treatment groups and one control group:the Rule Instruction group was first instructed to grammar rules and then exposed to intact text; the Textual Enhancement group received typographically enhanced text and the Reciting group was required to memorize the intact text after reading it; the Control group received only intact text without any enhanced type of input.A pretest, a treatment, three posttests and a questionnaire constituted the whole experiment. The raw data collected from the tests were processed by SPSS 11.5 to examine the three issues and the major findings granted by the present study are as follows:1) The three enhancement techniques are all significantly more effective in drawing learners'noticing and promoting learners'acquisition of the target linguistic form than unenhanced instruction;2) Reciting is comparatively more effective than other two enhancement techniques in both drawing learners'noticing and promoting learners'acquisition of the target linguistic form;3) For all the three enhanced groups, their performances decreased from the immediate acquisition test to the final acquisition test, which indicates that noticing may not be directly related to acquisition;4) Textual Enhancement, as an external attention-drawing device, is not so effective as has been assumed.At the end of the paper, theories on Explicitness and Elaboration, Implicit/Explicit knowledge, Attentional Resources were employed to discuss the results. Recently, researchers have begun to investigate the effects of manipulating and enhancing input, implicitly and explicitly, with the aim of increasing the usefulness for second language acquisition of the input available in the classroom. This study, based on Alanen(1995), Sayuri(2000) and Izumi(2002), aims to investigate the potentially facilitative effects of different types of Input Enhancement techniques on learners' noticing as well as acquisition of the target linguistic form—the English past hypothetical conditional. Specifically, the study challenges three research questions:1) Does enhanced input show greater power in drawing learners'attention to target linguistic form than unenhanced input? If so, which technique (Rule Instruction, Textual Enhancement or Reciting) performs best?2) Does enhanced input show greater power in promoting learners' immediate acquisition of target linguistic form than unenhanced input? If so, which technique performs best?3) Does enhanced input show greater power in promoting learners'final acquisition of target linguistic form than unenhanced input? If so, which technique performs best?These questions were examined in a controlled experimental study in which receiving of Rule Instruction, exposure to Textual Enhancement and requirement of Reciting were systematically varied.175 sophomores of non-English majors from 4 classes were involved into the experiment and they were randomly assigned as three treatment groups and one control group:the Rule Instruction group was first instructed to grammar rules and then exposed to intact text; the Textual Enhancement group received typographically enhanced text and the Reciting group was required to memorize the intact text after reading it; the Control group received only intact text without any enhanced type of input.A pretest, a treatment, three posttests and a questionnaire constituted the whole experiment. The raw data collected from the tests were processed by SPSS 11.5 to examine the three issues and the major findings granted by the present study are as follows:1) The three enhancement techniques are all significantly more effective in drawing learners'noticing and promoting learners'acquisition of the target linguistic form than unenhanced instruction;2) Reciting is comparatively more effective than other two enhancement techniques in both drawing learners'noticing and promoting learners'acquisition of the target linguistic form;3) For all the three enhanced groups, their performances decreased from the immediate acquisition test to the final acquisition test, which indicates that noticing may not be directly related to acquisition;4) Textual Enhancement, as an external attention-drawing device, is not so effective as has been assumed.At the end of the paper, theories on Explicitness and Elaboration, Implicit/Explicit knowledge, Attentional Resources were employed to discuss the results.