B014594 1

THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH MORAY HOUSE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

THE EFFECTS OF VISUAL INPUT ENHANCEMENT ON IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE: A QUASI

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

s1150095

Word count: 15856

This dissertation is presented in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in

TESOL

2012

B014594 2

Abstract

The psycholinguistic concept of visual input enhancement emerged through the

notions of noticing and attention; nevertheless, different studies have found differentiated

results about its role in instructed second language acquisition. The present study aims to

explore the effects of visual input enhancement on structure acquisition (i.e. the “wish”

structure) and more precisely, its effects on implicit and explicit knowledge. The underlying

assumption is that VIE as an instructional technique directing learner attention to pre-

specified elements in the input might facilitate more the acquisition of either one of the two

types of knowledge. The quasi experimental study used a pretest, posttest, delayed posttest

research design to measure gains in knowledge for 52 lower intermediate learners of English

aged twelve and thirteen years old. They were randomly allocated to one of two groups,

Rule and Rule + Enhancement; the treatment followed a focus on form approach and the

enhancement included boldface, larger font, colour, underlining and flashing words.

Observation and note taking were also employed. The three test versions consisted of six

outcome measure tasks each measuring different types of knowledge ordered from more

implicit to more explicit and the results were analyzed quantitatively. The results showed an

overall facilitative effect of instruction yet no additional gain for enhancement. However,

the results differed for each task and indicated that the effect of instruction related to implicit

knowledge; enhancement appeared to have small effects on explicit knowledge, interestingly

positive and negative in different tasks. Finally, observation suggested that the enhancement

was noticed by some participants. The main conclusion concerns the confirmation of the

need to use multiple measure tasks requiring the application of different types of knowledge

since instructional techniques such as enhancement can be facilitative for one type.

Moreover, even though visual enhancement did not in general seem to support acquisition, it

might have pedagogic value relating to the process and not the product of language learning.

B014594 3

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my special thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Fordyce Kenneth, for

his valuable guidance throughout the project. He has been a mentor, without whom this

research would have been difficult to materialize.

I would also like to thank Dr. Mike Sharwood Smith for his precious help with the

theoretical issues of the research as well as his insightful commentary.

Finally, the school principal Mrs. Panagiota Makrugianni, the teacher Ms. Amalia

Kalompatsou as well as all the anonymous participants deserve a sincere thanks: the latter

for their voluntary participation and the first for their excellent cooperation and assistance

throughout the research.

B014594 4

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8

2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 12

2.1 Noticing as the aim of instruction ................................................................................... 12

2.1.1 What is noticing? .................................................................................................... 13

2.1.2 Attention- What to notice? ..................................................................................... 14

2.1.3 Noticing and understanding .................................................................................... 15

2.1.4 Structures that need noticing induced by instruction .............................................. 16

2.2 How to make something more salient- input enhancement ............................................ 18

2.2.1 Types of enhancement ............................................................................................ 18

2.3 Implicit and explicit knowledge ....................................................................................... 19

2.3.1 Characteristics of two types of knowledge .............................................................. 19

2.3.2 The relationship between knowledge types ............................................................ 20

2.3.3 The need to measure knowledge with many tasks .................................................. 21

2.4 Related previous research .............................................................................................. 22

2.4.1 Problems of studies about learning ......................................................................... 22

2.4.2 Review of studies on enhancement ......................................................................... 22

2.5 Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 26

3 Research Design ..................................................................................................................... 27

3.1 Participants .................................................................................................................... 27

3.2 Ethics .............................................................................................................................. 27

3.3 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................ 28

3.3.1 Outcome Measure Tasks ......................................................................................... 29

3.3.2 Classroom Observation ........................................................................................... 30

3.4 Intervention ................................................................................................................... 31

3.4.1 Grammatical Structure ............................................................................................ 31

B014594 5

3.4.2 Treatment ............................................................................................................... 32

3.4.3 Control .................................................................................................................... 33

3.5 Data Scoring, Coding and Analysis ................................................................................... 34

4 Findings and discussion .......................................................................................................... 36

4.1 Total test findings ........................................................................................................... 37

4.2 Task A findings (picture cued oral elicitation task) ........................................................... 39

4.3 Task B findings (picture cued written elicitation task) ..................................................... 40

4.4 Task C findings (multiple choice task) .............................................................................. 41

4.5 Task D findings (fill in the gap) ........................................................................................ 43

4.6 Task E findings (GJT and correction) ................................................................................ 44

4.7 Task F findings (Translation) ........................................................................................... 46

4.8 Discussion....................................................................................................................... 47

4.9 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 52

5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 54

5.1 Summary of findings and implications ............................................................................ 54

5.2 Limitations and future research ...................................................................................... 56

6 References ............................................................................................................................. 57

7 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 63

7.1 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 63

7.1.1 Original Parental Informed Consent Form ............................................................... 63

7.1.2 Translated version of Informed Consent Form......................................................... 65

7.2 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 66

7.2.1 Pre-test ................................................................................................................... 66

7.2.2 Post-test ................................................................................................................. 71

7.2.3 Delayed Post-test .................................................................................................... 75

7.3 Appendix C-Rule Presentation and Instructional Tasks (Including Teacher Guidelines) ... 82

B014594 6

7.4 Appendix D- Scoring System and Examples .................................................................... 83

B014594 7

List of tables

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the total test scores .................................................................... 38

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for Task A scores .............................................................................. 40

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for Task B scores .............................................................................. 41

Table 4: Descriptive statistics for Task C ......................................................................................... 42

Table 5: Descriptive statistics for Task D ......................................................................................... 44

Table 6: Descriptive statistics for Task E ......................................................................................... 45

Table 7: Descriptive statistics for Task F ......................................................................................... 47

List of figures

Figure 1: Change of mean scores for total test score. ..................................................................... 38

Figure 2: Change of mean scores for task A .................................................................................... 39

Figure 3: Change of mean scores for Task B .................................................................................... 41

Figure 4: Change of mean scores for Task C .................................................................................... 42

Figure 5: Change of mean scores for Task D ................................................................................... 43

Figure 6: Change of mean scores for task E .................................................................................... 45

Figure 7: Change of mean scores for Task F .................................................................................... 47

B014594 8

1 Introduction

In the field of instructed second language acquisition, a significant body of research

concerns discovering the more effective ways for learning. Notwithstanding the current

trend that no single method is best (Kumaravadivelu 2006; Brown 2002), the concern

remains with ways to promote and facilitate learning for students. There seems to be some

agreement that learning benefits from some focus on form at some stage of the lesson

(Nunan 2004). In this respect, the approach of focus on form (Long and Robinson 1998)

emerged to overcome the insufficiencies of the oppositional approaches of the grammar-

translation and communicative language teaching.

Focus on form (FonF) involves a general communicative approach where the central

focus is on meaning with, nevertheless, points of directing the attention on language form,

i.e. specific target structures where formal and functional are combined (Swain 2002;

Larsen-Freeman 2001; Van Lier 2001). The instructional aim is to raise learner awareness of

the particular structure which might have otherwise gone unnoticed; in other words, the

teacher seeks to increase the salience of the particular grammatical point in its meaningful

context of appearance and use.

The theoretical rationale behind this approach revolves around the noticing

hypothesis, which argues that for a feature to be learnt, it needs first to be noticed (Schmidt

1993, 1990). Linked to this are the notions of attention and awareness and more specifically,

if these are necessary for language learning (e.g. Leow 2000; Robinson 1995; Schmidt 1993,

1990). Once more, the teacher’s role is viewed as narrowing the learner attention to the

desirable grammatical aspects.

Related to noticing and the focus on form approach is the notion of salience. It has

been claimed that in order to be noticed, features need to “stand out”, in other words, be of

increased salience. The term “input enhancement”, introduced by Sharwood Smith (1993,

1991) refers to either external manipulation in the hope of increasing its saliency or the

learner internal process of reaching readiness to notice the feature. A subcategory, namely

visual input enhancement, could potentially assist learners to direct their focal attention to

the grammatical point, thus functioning as an implicit and indirect focus on form technique,

B014594 9

aiming to register the form in learner memory. This could manifest by an improved

performance assuming to reflect improved knowledge.

Studies on visual enhancement have produced contradictory results and no hard

conclusion has been reached about its role in language acquisition. Contradictory studies

report enhancement resulting in better acquisition (e.g. Lee 2007) or not (e.g. Wong 2003),

facilitating comprehension (Doughty 1991), impeding it (Lee 2007), or having no influence

at all (Leow et al. 2003). The highly contested nature of these findings can be attributed to

methodological inconsistencies among the studies and points to the need for further research

examining the effect on enhancement on knowledge.

The nature of this knowledge is not unproblematic itself; two not easily identifiable

types have been proposed, implicit and explicit while opposing views hold regarding the

existence of an interface between the two. These are seen either as distinct and resulting

from different mental processes, with different characteristics (e.g. Krashen) or implicit is

regarded to turn into explicit through practice (e.g. DeKeyser 2003). A third view holds

those as operating collaboratively, taking into account the interplay of the environmental

conditions such as time pressure or communicative purpose (e.g. N. Ellis 2005). In any case,

the determination of which type of knowledge the learner possesses or uses is highly

problematic. One should thus examine which type of knowledge instruction seems to benefit,

so as to better address learner needs.

The present study attempts to examine the above presented theoretical arguments and

link them to the practicalities of instructed second language acquisition. More specifically, it

is a quasi-experimental study attempting to explore possible benefits visual input

enhancement might have on acquired knowledge, and if so, whether this type of input

manipulation exhibits gains for implicit or explicit knowledge. Carried out in intact classes,

it uses a pretest, posttest, delayed posttest design to compare two groups of learners: one

receiving rule presentation (Rule group) and the other rule plus visual input enhancement in

the form of boldface, underlining, larger font, colour and flashing words (Rule +

Enhancement group). An important element of the study concerns the multiplicity of

measurement tasks; six tasks are used to measure gains in knowledge -as evidenced by

B014594 10

performance- hypothesizing that instruction and in particular enhancement might be more or

less facilitative for different types of knowledge.

Chapter 2, the literature review, will discuss the theoretical foundations of the

noticing hypothesis and the concept of attention, as these have been operationalized by

different researchers and theorists. The issues of saliency and, naturally, input enhancement

will also be presented and studies on visual or textual enhancement will be compared against

each other. Points of congruence and contradiction in the literature will be highlighted as

these influence the present research. Moreover, the subject of the nature of implicit and

explicit knowledge will be discussed in some detail, since the idea of instructional

manipulation favouring one of these types is a central issue of this study.

Chapter 3 presents the quasi experimental research design: firstly, the choice of

locale and participants, the ethical issues that had to be taken into consideration and

alternative routes sought. Secondly, the experimental manipulation for the treatment will be

presented. Since ecological validity was important, there was an attempt to deliver a lesson

as similar to learners’ usual ones as possible, adhering to the principles of focus on form.

Subsequently, the six measurement tasks will be elaborated on as well as how these were

scored and coded for statistical analysis.

Chapter 4 will first report the results of the analysis along with some preliminary

explanation of what these results represent; after the raw data were coded, they were entered

into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and analyzed statistically.

Descriptive statistics are provided in tables and figures for a better visual presentation and

due to limited space in the main body of argumentation. The discussion includes, apart from

the quantitative, statistical results, some interesting observations made during the treatment

(the two lessons). The findings are compared to those of similar pieces of research and

naturally, limitations are identified along with the strong points of the study.

Finally, Chapter 5, the Conclusion, will sum up the general lines of this piece of

research and link its findings to the broader area of input enhancement and noticing. Some

theoretical and pedagogical implications of this research will be presented, along with some

methodological suggestions for research in the field of instructed SLA and input

B014594 11

enhancement. It will also indicate areas that remain problematic and suggest points for

future research.

B014594 12

2 Literature Review

2.1 Noticing as the aim of instruction

There has been much debate in instructed second language acquisition (SLA) about

the potentially facilitative effect of implicit or explicit instruction, the latter involving rules

and/or attention to forms and attempts to metalinguistic generalizations (Norris and Ortega

2000). Many hold a facilitative role for explicit instruction in the field of SLA with

nevertheless questionable long-term effects, (Norris and Ortega 2000; Rosa and O’Neill

1999; Long and Robinson 1998; Robinson 1996). Truscott (1998) in contrast criticizing the

absence of long-term effects of instruction considers these indicative of the failure of

instruction. Bearing in mind, however, research particularities – length of treatment,

individual characteristics such as memory capacity and type of instruction, to name a few-

absolute statements (i.e. failure) might appear awkward when the number of interconnected

variables is so overwhelming. Instruction, in any case, is concerned not merely with what is

possible but instead with effectiveness and efficiency within the classroom constraints

(Doughty 2003).

In this respect, much discussion assumes the aim of instruction to be to change

learners’ focal attention to make noticing linguistic features more likely and eventually lead

to their acquisition (Norris and Ortega 2000; R. Ellis 1994); in other words, an element’s

lack of salience is seen as motivating explicit instruction (N. Ellis 2002). Similarly, Schmidt

(1990) regards instruction aiming to establish expectations and prime what to notice. This

priming can be achieved by making a feature in the input more distinguishable, meaning, by

enhancing its salience. Lee (2007) consents that textual enhancement as a Focus on Form

(FonF) technique can draw learner attention to form and meaning (Lee 2007). This section

will examine the rationale for input enhancement as a FonF method, relating it to the

theoretical issues of attention and noticing. Moreover, it will be discussed how the effects of

noticing might apply to one knowledge type, i.e. implicit or explicit; for this reason, there is

also a summary of the main theoretical issues regarding these types of knowledge.

The role of attention has been central in SLA and is most widely addressed through

the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt 1993; 1990). The noticing hypothesis claims that in order

B014594 13

for something to be learned, it must first be noticed; Schmidt (1990: 139) moves one step

further and considers noticing to be both necessary and sufficient for the conversion of input

to intake. Intake is what has been noticed and registered for further processing (Corder

1967), or “that part of input that the learner notices” with noticing related to rehearsal in

working memory (Schmidt 1993). Sharwood Smith (1993) has similarly claimed that only

what has been registered in the learner’s mind can be processed and turned into intake.

2.1.1 What is noticing?

Noticing has been operationalized differently and has come to denote from a low

level, trivial perceptual noticing to intentional, aware noticing of a form and its registration

in short term memory for further processing. Ellis et al (2009) regard noticing the cognitive

activity of learners consciously attending to a specific feature in the input. Since the term

“consciously” lacks definitional clarity, Schmidt (1990) deconstructs it into awareness, at

the levels of perception and noticing, or focal awareness subject to intentionality. Then, he

considers understanding, intention and knowledge or similarly in later work, (1995),

intention, attention, noticing and understanding. He (1995) considers attention a prerequisite

for learning but noticing as low-level awareness while relating high level awareness to

understanding. Robinson’s (2003) conceptualization of attention as the process which

encodes input, keeps it active in short term memory and retrieves it from long-term clearly

does not involve awareness/consciousness. Tomlin and Villa (1994) similarly argue that

cognitive detection of stimuli does not necessarily involve awareness from the part of the

individual. Noticing, according to N. Ellis (2002), helps register an initial memory trace, or

explicit memory whereas implicit learning allows generalizations from instances and the

emergence of fluency and native-like performance. Attention is deemed necessary for

storage in long term memory since unattended stimuli fail to remain in short term memory

for more than a few seconds (Schmidt 1995). Hence, noticing has largely been regarded a

necessary initial learning stage.

On the other hand, in their modular view of the mind, Truscott and Sharwood Smith

(2011) argue that noticing as a sensory experience does not assume understanding of the

form and claim that the latter will be processed merely as a visual sign, in the visual

cognitive domain. In other words, they refer to low level noticing and attribute minimal, if

B014594 14

any, importance to it. Truscott (1998) also perceives little value of noticing the input, or

being aware of it in a global sense-admittedly, this view appears reasonable. He further

questions whether attention to the particular features and conscious awareness are in fact

necessary; yet second language acquisition is more concerned with what is optimal and

effective, rather than an absolute cognitive necessity. Schwartz (1993) makes the same point

about the domain-specificity of different modules (such as the language and the visual ones)

arguing that only primary language data as occurring naturally can feed into the language

module of the mind. This way, noticing is viewed as merely a perceptual function

dissociated from language learning.

It might be interesting to research into if such noticing can in fact be processed

further and affect noticing in the domain of the mind responsible for the L2. Cognitive

theory could support the argument that simultaneous processing in many domains of the

mind could strengthen network connections and facilitate registration in long term memory

and subsequent recall (Dornyei 2009). Moreover, Robinson (2003) sees the processing of

sensory (e.g. visual) information, selected by attentional mechanisms, as the first step for

learning; instruction could aim to attract those attentional mechanisms.

2.1.2 Attention- What to notice?

The amount of information learners are exposed to (both sensory and cognitive) is

overwhelming; attentional systems serve to control, reduce and tidy this massive input

(Tomlin and Villa 1994). Since input contains numerous cues, N. Ellis (2006a) not

unreasonably claims that learners function according to a probabilistic contrast model to

select which elements from all available to use as input. Robinson (2003) similarly

distinguishes between peripheral attention which detects all available input and focal

attention which selects input from the array, similarly to the idea of what elements will turn

to intake, i.e. will be registered for processing. VanPatten’s (1990; 1994) research points to a

limited cognitive capacity model, since learners –particularly in early stages- seem unable to

attend to both form and contend simultaneously and Robinson (1997) similarly highlights

that processing demands slow down performance. The implication this has for instruction

involves directing learner’s conscious attention towards the desirable target structure.

B014594 15

Following that not every single aspect of the input is attended to, a number of factors

seem to govern feature selection. It would be interesting to examine ways of making target

features more salient for learners to notice, since attentional shifting or “learned attention” is

possible, at least for perceptual learning (N. Ellis 2006b pp. 2). Tomlin and Villa (1994)

define attention as alertness (general readiness for stimuli), orientation (commitment of

attentional capacities to sensory stimuli and detection (cognitive registration of some

stimuli). In this context, techniques to increase salience can be argued to aim at selected

orientation in the hope that detection will take place since it is agreed that orienting attention

facilitates detection (Tomlin and Villa 1994). Considering detection as “the process that

selects, or engages, a particular and specific bit of information” makes it similar to noticing

(Tomlin and Villa 1994: 192); in fact, Schmidt’s noticing can thus be re-worded as

“detection within selective attention” (Tomlin and Villa 1994: 198). We can therefore

externally manipulate orientation but not conclusively argue for or predict detection.

Schmidt (1995: 20) argues that detection, or the “cognitive registration of sensory stimuli”

available for processing (i.e. intake) is not associated with awareness of what is being

attended to and equates it with focal attention (Schmidt 1994). Arguably, detection involves

“subliminal exposure effects” which do not constitute learning (Robinson 1995: 298); this,

however, does not negate its value at even a very basic, initial stage and subsequently leaves

some space for speculation regarding techniques to promote detection of particular features.

2.1.3 Noticing and understanding

Manipulating learner attention links to FonF as a type of instruction; the latter is

middle ground between communicative and analytical approaches and seeks to combine the

benefits of both (Long and Robinson 1998). Communicative or “experiential” approaches

regard learning the byproduct of communication while “analytic” ones involve the deliberate

study and mastery of linguistic features (Harley 1994; 60). Robinson (1997) considers the

most significant advantage of focus on form to be the noticing of structures along their

functional coordinates, with brief explicit interventions taking place during otherwise

meaningful communication (Norris and Ortega 2000), which DeKeyser (2003) has also

found to boost the attained outcome.

B014594 16

FonF in other words brings together the issues of noticing and understanding,

explored by a number of researchers. It is agreed that noticing and understanding are closely

related, facilitative to each other, and learning occurs during form and meaning interaction at

least for newly encountered structures (N. Ellis 2006; N. Ellis 2005, 2002; Rosa and O’

Neill 1999; Terrell 1991). Robinson (1996: 32) makes a distinction between the “attention-

focusing position” and the “understanding position”: the first regards pedagogic rules

facilitative in focusing attention on pre-selected aspects to be noticed and learned clearly

linking to FonF; the second sees rules as leading to conscious understanding of the structural

regularities of the rule.

On the other hand, VanPatten (1990) employs a limited cognitive capacity model

and concludes that attention to grammatical and morphological forms impedes

comprehension while attention to lexical items does not, something reasonable considering

that lexis carry the primary meaning in utterances. Schmidt accepts this model yet argues

that it is not fixed but expands with information being presented in a multimodal fashion. In

contrast, Lee’s (2007) study disconfirmed the hypothesis that topic familiarity would free

attentional resources and direct them to form, which indicates that learner cognitive state is

hard –if not impossible- to define and points to a reconsideration of the limited capacity

model.

Oppositional voices however do not consider comprehension necessary for intake

(Ellis et al 2009). Han, Park and Combs (2008) aptly attribute these contradictory findings to

sequential versus simultaneous processing arguing that only the first appears facilitative.

Nevertheless, this contradicts Doughty’s (1991) finding of successful simultaneous meaning

comprehension and structural noticing, thus finding no interference between meaning and

rule comprehension. The findings in general do not provide a clear picture of the

relationship between noticing and understanding.

2.1.4 Structures that need noticing induced by instruction

An area of interest to SLA research would be to manipulate the processes of

attentional allocation by increasing the salience of the target features and study its effects.

Salience refers to “the general perceived strength of stimuli” as N. Ellis (2006b) aptly puts it

and consists of both physical/measurable intensity and subjectively experienced intensity.

B014594 17

Salience and understanding are related; linguistic features lacking saliency or not

being crucial for communication may not become intake (Harley 1994) possibly as a result

of going unnoticed. For example, inflectional morphology for tense has low perceptual

saliency (Terrell 1991) because it is usually accompanied by more salient meaning bearing

time expressions. Such semantically redundant, low salience elements are difficult to acquire

(N. Ellis 2006b) and hence benefit from attention since may otherwise remain unprocessed

(Sharwood Smith 1993; Schmidt 1995, 1990). It might be possible, following VanPatten

(1994: 34), that explicit knowledge can act as a “focusing device for learner attention”

something not unreasonable to argue for manipulated, enhanced input as well. Moreover,

noticing in L2 is primarily guided by mechanisms pertaining to L1, which creates the need

for pedagogical intervention since what adults notice in the L2 is filtered by their acquired L1

(Doughty 2003; Harley 1994). Therefore, semantic redundancy and L1 and L2 inconsistency not only

recommend input manipulation to increase the structure’s perceived salience but also constitute

criteria for choosing a grammatical feature as the target for instruction.

Having explained what is possible to remain unnoticed, I should also introduce

factors likely to cause noticing; these include task demands, frequency, unusual nature of the

structure, saliency and prior linguistic knowledge (R. Ellis 1994). An implication for

instruction would be to manipulate one or more of these areas to promote noticing, while

acknowledging that they do not guarantee noticing but merely make it more likely.

Moreover, what constitutes a structure more or less difficult is- besides learner

differences- frequency, perceptual or other type of saliency, functional value, regularity

(scope and reliability) and processability (Ellis et al 2009). DeKeyser (2003) likewise

explains that it is difficult to define rule difficulty since it depends on two factors: the rule’s

intrinsic linguistic complexity and the individual’s ability to handle it. The intrinsic nature of

a structure (expressed as a pedagogic rule) also affects noticing and understanding since

complexity and non-saliency might cause learners to ignore the structure in favour of more

salient and simpler rules (Robinson 1996). Additionally, DeKeyser (1995) holds explicit

learning conditions to be more facilitative for categorical rules. Even if specific criteria

could apply to the first factor, individual learner mental and cognitive states are impossible

to predict or even assess. DeKeyser (2003: 332) interestingly speculates that previous

B014594 18

linguistic ability could determine the rule’s “subjective difficulty”: explicit learning could

thus cause or speed up learning for stronger learners, whilst it could result in noticing some

forms for future use for weaker ones. In sum, categorical, fairly straightforward yet non

salient rules have been proposed to benefit more from instruction, with yet a differentiated

outcome depending on prior knowledge.

2.2 How to make something more salient- input enhancement

In order to promote the noticing of non-salient structures with the above

characteristics, teachers usually employ an array of techniques. The process of input

manipulation, in the hope of increasing its salience for the learners to notice is best

described by the term Sharwood Smith (1993; 1991) has coined, i.e. input enhancement. It is

an attempt by the teacher to direct learners’ attention to a formal aspect of language since

salience is considered by Tomlin and Villa (1994) to be crucial for acquisition. Although

language instruction cannot predict the learning that will actually take place (Ellis et al

2009), Schmidt (1995: 46) views the role of instruction as a “cognitive focusing device or

advance organizer for learner attention”; I would assume a similar role for input

enhancement, which is after all, an instructional technique: it could act as an attractor of

focal, or selective, attention to the enhanced elements (terms from Schmidt 1994).

One should however note that this constitutes a process externally induced, with the

teacher manipulating the input whereas noticing is learner internal (Sharwood Smith 1993,

1991; Schmidt 1993). Schmidt (1993) aptly explains that the focus of attention is not easy to

manipulate in accordance to a prepared lesson plan- one can only hope that such a plan will

be successful in directing learner attention. The potential increased saliency in the learner’s

processing mechanisms cannot be directly assessed and examined and can only be

speculated about; therefore, research is concerned with the effects of input manipulation on

learner acquisition, intake, and recently, comprehension.

2.2.1 Types of enhancement

Input manipulation can take many forms: it includes error correction, body language,

auditory or visual enhancement or rule presentation. N. Ellis (2002) suggests exaggerated

phonological input to raise the salience of L2 patterns divergent from L1. The focus on

particular linguistic features can vary in explicitness and elaboration, the first referring to

B014594 19

detail and the second to the time devoted to the treatment (Sharwood Smith

1991).Furthermore, both positive and negative enhancement is possible, such as highlighting

what is and what is not possible, respectively. In practice, enhancement can be claimed to be

any type of technique aiming to increase the saliency of a feature.

Moreover, different types of enhancement are more or less obtrusive and range

along an explicit/implicit continuum, with typographical enhancement being the least and

metalinguistic rules the most explicit (Robinson 1997). I hypothesize typographical

enhancement to be implicit and less obtrusive in treatments with a primary focus on

meaning. Textual enhancement is considered to function as an implicit attention-directing

element; so implicit that in fact its purpose might not be clear to the learners (Han, Park and

Combs 2008). Doughty (2003) even argues that visual enhancement may not be salient

enough- I would argue that technological advancements (e.g. computer presentations) allow

for levels of enhancement different from printed enhanced input. However, one ought to be

cautious of excessively enhanced input, since it could impede and suppress perception of the

rest of the stimuli detected by the senses (Robinson 2003). Similarly, Lee (2007), Han, Park

and Combs (2008) warn against excessive enhancement consuming all attentional capacities;

even though Gascoigne (2006) supports robust enhancement, he also acknowledges a

potential threshold level. Different levels and types of enhancement have formed the basis of

experiments, and exactly those methodological differences make comparisons difficult, if

not impossible.

2.3 Implicit and explicit knowledge

2.3.1 Characteristics of two types of knowledge

The effects of enhancement and instruction in general have been measured by

assessing the knowledge learners are able to perform, which nevertheless in not without

problems itself. Another contested point in the literature regards the distinction between

implicit and explicit knowledge, which will be shown to suggest methodological

requirements in related research.

It seems difficult, if not impossible, to define a learner’s production as reflecting

either one of the two knowledge types; nevertheless, these can be attributed some distinctive

B014594 20

characteristics. Ellis et al (2009) equate explicit with declarative, factual knowledge

controlled by awareness. Ellis and Barkhuisen (2005) consider implicit knowledge as the

type we have of our L1 ( proceduralized, available for spontaneous production, consisting

of chunks) while explicit as awareness of schemata, analyzed, followed by the ability to

verbalize, while Hulstijn and DeGraaff (1994: 106) hold that “fluency is the behavioral

correlate of implicit knowledge”. DeKeyser (1995) considers implicit knowledge evidenced

through fluent and accurate online production; this claim, however, by demanding both

accuracy and fluency, disregards learner interlanguage, which could rely on implicit yet

incomplete and developing knowledge, not to mention the fact that fluency can be

influenced by factors related to performance (Hulstijn and DeGraaff 1994) such as stress or

time pressure. Hence, it might be better to place these types of knowledge on a continuum

and attribute a set of characteristics to each pole end. In this fashion, explicit knowledge is

conscious, needs the application of attention while implicit is tacit and intuitive in judging

grammaticality as well as rapidly accessed in unplanned production (Ellis et al 2009).

Implicit thus can be summarized to be reflected in fast and fluent speech production whereas

explicit in self-monitoring or self-correcting, slow, controlled productions.

2.3.2 The relationship between knowledge types

There are three theoretical positions concerning the relation between these types of

knowledge. According to the non-interface position, those are distinct types corresponding

to distinct processes and products (Paradis 1994; Schwarz 1993; Krashen 1982); Doughty

(2003) effectively summarizes this position that learned knowledge cannot become acquired.

Krashen (1982) made the distinction between acquired competence and learned, explicit

knowledge with the latter functioning only as a monitor for self-correction. On the other

hand, the strong interface position holds that implicit and explicit knowledge interact (e.g.

Schmidt 1993) and that conscious grammatical knowledge ultimately leads to

communicative ability (Schmidt 1994) by explicitly learning rules and practicing towards

automatization (DeKeyser 2003, 1997). An underlying assumption seems to equate explicit

with metalinguistic knowledge (N. Ellis 1994; Sharwood-Smith 1994), which would appear

problematic. A somewhat more tentative point is expressed through the weak interface

position, which sees those two types as “dissociable but cooperative” with explicit learning

speeding up acquisition (N. Ellis 2005: 305; Doughty 2003). Even though explicit

B014594 21

knowledge cannot turn into implicit, the former can facilitate the latter by directing learner

attention to linguistic features as well as gaps in their interlanguage (Schmidt 1994; 1990).

Doughty (2003) also views the two as occurring simultaneously and aptly notes that they

cannot be unraveled empirically where only behavioral evidence accounts for the processes.

2.3.3 The need to measure knowledge with many tasks

The literature on implicit and explicit knowledge suggests that research attempt to

address both types since, notwithstanding researchers’ theoretical inclinations, instruction

and instructional techniques might be more or less facilitative to the acquisition of one

knowledge type. It is difficult, if not impossible, to argue that an utterance is initiated by any

of the two kinds of knowledge in a clear-cut way and Ellis et al (2009) argue for the

interaction of those two systems in learner performance. Moreover, there seem to exist

factors influencing whether the learner will tap into implicit or explicit knowledge including

task demands, complexity, familiarity and the intrinsic nature of the form (Ellis et al 2009;

VanPatten 1990, 1994).

Since different tasks pose different processing demands on learners (Harley 1994), it

is important to investigate how instruction might affect linguistic performance in each of a

number of tasks. One should bear in mind the time needed to develop one’s interlanguage;

lack of production could actually indicate lack of control over knowledge and not lack of

knowledge itself (Sharwood Smith 1991) hence the need to assess both receptive and

productive knowledge. Leow’s (1997) study likewise relates processing differences to task

differences as well as individual choices and points to the need to investigate learner

performance in a number of tasks and their interplay.

In addition, psycholinguistic factors also affect individual learners’ attention and

performance (Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005); since no method can elicit a valid picture of a

learner’s knowledge or thoughts, it is important that studies utilize a number of sources to

elicit performance data from. Multiple tasks can examine the interplay of fluency and

accuracy, which Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) define as non-hesitant language production in

real time and the exercise of control over what is internalized respectively. Revesz (2012),

exploring the effectiveness of recasts in an array of assessment tasks, found differentiated

results for each and attributed this to differences in working memory capacities, as they were

B014594 22

measured before the treatment. Finally, numerous assessment tasks can show the treatment

effects on different types of knowledge (Revesz 2012). In this respect, utterances can be

argued to tap into implicit competence whereas explicit knowledge is demonstrated when

learners slowly build their sentences or self-correct their productions’ grammaticality

(Paradis 1994).

2.4 Related previous research

2.4.1 Problems of studies about learning

A number of studies have examined the nature of learning and more specifically, if

implicit or explicit processes are facilitated by different types of instruction. However, this is

mostly addressed through testing, which measures the product, i.e. acquisition as evidenced

by performance, instead of the mental process itself (DeKeyser 2003). Moreover, the

determination of what knowledge learners draw on during language performance is highly

problematic and these two probably interact (Ellis et al 2009). The precise nature of

knowledge learners resort to cannot be directly inspected (Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005) since

self-reports and think-aloud protocols rely on ability to verbalize and restrict to aspects of

learning the learner is conscious of. Schmidt’s (1995: 28) words best describe it: “subjective

awareness is fleeting and cannot be completely recorded”. Finally, evidence from

experimental and cognitive psychology studies, incorporated in SLA theories, cannot

support conclusions for SLA processes (DeKeyser 1995; VanPatten 1994) owing to

fundamental methodological differences.

2.4.2 Review of studies on enhancement

In contrast, some studies have dealt with typographical input enhancement and its

effect on language learning; their findings will be briefly presented below. The lack of

congruence among studies regarding the effects of textual enhancement is intriguing; the

general conclusion Han, Park and Combs (2008: 602) have reached in a meta-analysis of

such research is that “enhanced forms may attract attention but may fall short of further

processing”. Moreover, textual enhancement appears to be more effective when learners

have some prior knowledge as well as when it is used in combination with another strategy

(Han, Park and Combs 2008). Thus, there seem to exist conditions under which

enhancement could prove helpful.

B014594 23

Some researchers have focused on the relationship between enhancement and

meaning comprehension or form learning. Lee’s (2007) quasi experimental study of 259

Korean EFL students utilized a FonF approach to reading to explore effects of textual

enhancement on meaning comprehension and form learning. Measurement tasks included

reading comprehension and Grammaticality judgement tasks (GJTs) with correction. He

concluded that enhancement facilitated form learning yet negatively affected comprehension

and warns against excessive enhancement which could overshadow meaning. Gascoigne

(2006) concurs to facilitative effects of enhancement for acquisition (of accent diacritics) yet

disagrees with the negative effect on comprehension. He evaluated the effects of physical,

kinesthetic enhancement (keyboarding versus pen and paper) on accent diacritics of French

in 80 adult English speaking beginners. He found that increased task difficulty and

requirement for more time and attention led to significantly more acquisition; the

assumption here is that those increased the saliency of the linguistic feature. His study thus

supports the effectiveness of explicit and computer mediated input enhancement. Yet, no

meaning interference was noted. Therefore, Gascoigne (2006) disagrees with Lee (2007) and

Han, Park and Combs (2008) in arguing that more robust enhancement produces stronger

effects, although he does tentatively speculate about a potential threshold level after which

attentional capacities become exhausted. This could be explained by the difference of

parallel and sequential processing of meaning and form; only the latter has been found to be

facilitative (Han, Park and Combs 2008).

More research points to a facilitative effect of enhancement. Doughty (1991)

conducted an empirical laboratory study on the effects of FonF for relativization, employing

textual enhancement or structure analysis; students completed the same lessons over ten

working days in a computer lab. The study showed benefits of attention to form, either by

structure analysis or by highlighting the target structures in context, with the latter having

effects on comprehension as well, in agreement with Wong (2003). Returning to Doughty’s

study (1991) she also found that perceptual saliency induced better results in learning than

rule provision and elaboration in contrast to Lee’s (2007) finding of rule presentation being

more explicit than textual enhancement. White et al. (1991) also note positive effects of

input enhancement on learner interlanguage, as evidenced by changes in oral performance.

They operationalized corrective feedback as input enhancement to examine effects on

B014594 24

accuracy in question formation; three classes of beginner 10-12 year old francophone ESL

learners were tested with a paper and pencil as well as an oral task.

In contrast to the above, other findings point to a non-facilitative effect of visual

enhancement. Alanen (1995) examined how rule presentation and visual enhancement

affected the acquisition of structural language elements (locative suffixes and four types of

consonant alteration embedded in two reading comprehension tasks) by 36 English speaking

beginners of semi-artificial Finnish. The rules were presented prior to the learning phase.

Overall, explicit rule-based instruction appeared beneficial for morphosyntax. The think

aloud protocols suggested that the outcome was influenced by learners’ focus of attention

yet visual enhancement did not have an effect on learner performance. The sentence

completion outcome measure task indicated significant effects for treatment but the GJT did

not, even though different results were reported between groups. The importance of

instructional conditions on GJTs has also been examined by Robinson (1997). He compared

instructional conditions for 60 adult Japanese ESL learners of English for the argument

structure frames of novel verbs; he found that enhanced conditions resulted in better

grammaticality judgements than implicit ones and explains this as evidence of knowledge

open to generalization, since he used transfer tasks. Nevertheless, he notes a slower

performance for enhanced conditions, as measured by reaction time and attributes this to a

conscious search for rules while reading for meaning which was in fact part of the

instructions.

Moreover, Wong (2003) reports no effect of textual enhancement on acquisition but

some benefit for comprehension and recall. The study utilized the French past participle

agreement in relative clauses, a non-meaningful grammatical form of low salience, for adult,

second semester students of French. She measured the effects on acquisition and

comprehension using an error correction task and a free recall task respectively.

Interestingly, the recall of the whole clause containing the form was facilitated (the form

was bolded and the whole clause underlined to show the grammatical connection, which

could admittedly have directed learner attention to the whole clause meaning instead of the

linguistic form).

B014594 25

Other studies investigated the relationship of enhancement, noticing, and acquisition.

Leow et al (2003) examined the effect of enhancement on noticing using think aloud

protocols with 72 first year college students on the Spanish present perfect and present

subjunctive. They found no difference in noticing for the enhanced and the unenhanced

group yet the issue of verbalization is easily raised and more specifically, whether self-

reports are an effective or even valid way to measure a mental process (see section ##).

Notwithstanding those problems, their study interestingly indicates a correlation between

reported noticing and intake, but no difference between the enhanced and unenhanced input

for noticing, comprehension, or intake. Likewise, Leow examined 32 (2000) and 28 (1997)

adult EFL/ESL learners’ intake and written productions of targeted Spanish morphological

forms. He utilized think aloud protocols during a problem solving task (crossword puzzle)

and a multiple choice recognition and written production as post-exposure assessment tasks.

He reports that differences in awareness resulted in differences in processing, with more

awareness inducing better recognition and accuracy in written production of the noticed

forms. His operationalization of noticing as “making a verbal or written correction of the

targeted form” and/or commenting on it (Leow 1997: 474) suggests that demonstration of

awareness correlated with better recognition and production (Leow 2000) since absence of

self-correction and/or commentary does not necessarily point to absence of awareness.

Similarly, Jourdenais et al. (1995) asked the question whether textual enhancement

could make linguistic forms (preterit and imperfect verb forms) more noticeable and affect

online form processing. Participants were 14 English speakers in second semester Spanish

(having already been taught the structure formally). The enhanced group produced more

forms in the subsequent task and Jourdenais et al. (1995) concluded that textual

enhancement promotes noticing and affects output. They acknowledge the underlying

assumption of think aloud protocols that information held in focal attention is available for

verbalization; the problems with this assumption however have been explained in section

###.

Moreover, Rosa and O’Neill (1999) looked into the relationship between the degree

of explicitness and awareness of input for Spanish contrary to fact conditional sentences in

the past in 67 adult English speakers with no prior knowledge of the structure. They

B014594 26

measured intake using a multiple choice recognition task immediately after the instructional

problem solving task and awareness with think aloud protocols. They report that degree of

explicitness had differentiated effects on intake, that stronger awareness resulted in better

intake and that task conditions affected the way information was processed.

2.5 Research Questions

Clearly, the existing literature appears inconclusive and even contradictory. The

methodological particularities of each study forbid generalizations and comparisons.

However, if carefully examined, each study can add to our existing knowledge and

contradictions can be attributed to methodological differences. The present study attempts to

cast some more light in the area of visual input enhancement (hence VIE); it examines

possible effects of VIE on learner knowledge, as this is evidenced by performance in sex

tasks. Moreover, the rationale for such an array of outcome measure tasks concerns another

question; namely, which types of knowledge benefit the most from instruction and more

specifically from VIE, as suggested by Revesz (2012) and elaborated in section ##.

Therefore, the following research questions are formulated:

1. Does visual input enhancement have an effect on learner knowledge, as evidenced by performance in the outcome measure tasks?

2. Do FonF instruction and VIE benefit –and to what extend- implicit and explicit knowledge, as these are assumed to be used in the different tasks?

The following chapter will present the research design in detail and provide

operationalizations for each element in the research questions.

B014594 27

3 Research Design

3.1 Participants

The general design of the present study is quasi-experimental; it was conducted in

intact classes in order to ensure ecological validity and reach conclusions for pedagogy

(Hulstijn 1997). This section will present the participants’ profile, the pretest, post-test,

delayed post-test data collection procedures, elaboration on and rationale for the secondary

method of classroom observation; moreover, it will present details about the treatment,

including the choice of the “wish” target structure to be taught, the intervention instructional

materials, and the control-assuring teacher instruction package and guidelines. Finally, it

will briefly introduce the data coding and analysis procedures.

This research was carried out in a Greek state Junior High School in a rural area. The

choice of school followed convenience sampling (Creswell 1998), since the principal and

the staff were already familiar with the researcher. The intact classes for participation were

chosen according to age (12 and 13 years old) which would be indicative of previous

learning as well as the expectation that these classes would have either none or limited

knowledge of the target structure. Four intact classes (A1, A2, B1 and B2) were merged into

two, to form the Rule and Rule + Visual Enhancement groups and offer a bigger sample.

Students displayed various levels and abilities in English; an initial proficiency test (Oxford

UP 2001) indicated a range of scores along a lower intermediate level, with only few

extreme cases. The allocation of students in each of the groups was random: the alphabetical

list was numbered and then divided into odd and even numbers to form the two groups.

Group equivalence was assured with a t-test of the scores obtained in the Oxford QPT

(2001). After attrition, the Rule group consisted of 27 participants and the Rule +

Enhancement group of 25.

3.2 Ethics

Given the young age of the students, ethical issues were considered throughout the

research process. Firstly, institutional permission was gained from the principal and the

school English teacher agreed to collaborate. Subsequently, parental informed consent was

sought for each participant: a letter was given explaining the general nature and aim of the

B014594 28

research and asking for parental permission for student participation (see Appendix A for an

original and an English translated version). The letter was kept short and informal to adhere

to the local school culture. Furthermore, owing to the nature of the study relating to

“noticing”, the description of the research aims was general; these were referred to as the

determination of the most effective teaching methods instead of describing the exact form of

the treatment (i.e. visual input enhancement), which would have interfered with the aim of

the study itself and provide skewed results. Sixty one forms were given out; fifty-nine

responded positively but seven were finally eliminated due to failure to complete all stages

of the research (pretest, posttest, delayed posttest, treatment). Some attrition had been

expected due to the ecological environment of the study; it is impossible to control for

unscheduled student absences and for this reason, having provisioned for a relatively large

sample allowed for some incomplete cases to be excluded.

3.3 Data Collection Methods

The experimental design pointed to a data collection process consisting of a pretest, a

posttest and a delayed posttest to compare gains in knowledge for all participants as well as

find groups differences. The three test versions (see Appendix B) were piloted with three

students who were however older than the actual participants; it proved difficult to access

students of the same age given the tight time framework and some interfering school

holidays. The piloting indicated that the three versions were equivalent and unproblematic;

however, one should note the students’ older age and more advanced level.

The pretest was delivered one school day before the treatment, the posttest on the

first school day following the treatment and the delayed posttest three weeks later.

Optimally, the delayed posttest should be delivered even later, yet this compromise was

necessary owing to school summer holidays. What is more, it would have been difficult to

control for additional teaching of the structure in the meantime due to the strong private

tutoring tradition in Greece. Finally, the format of test tasks differed from the treatment in

class activities, which allows the assumption that transfer effects did not occur (White et al.

1991).

B014594 29

3.3.1 Outcome Measure Tasks

A significant element of the research design is the variety of outcome measures,

which has been stressed in the literature but has not been largely operationalized. Hulstijn

(1997), for instance, stresses the importance of measuring a construct such as acquired

knowledge using multiple tasks, especially when such a construct has been shown to be

multilevel and complex (see section 2.3). Each test consisted of six tasks in order to explore

the effects of VIE and instruction on both productive and receptive knowledge, since

instruction can have an effect only on one (Hulstijn and DeGraaff 1997).

These tasks are in order of appearance: A) Oral picture-cued elicitation task, B)

Written picture-cued elicitation task, C) Multiple Choice task, D) Fill in the gap, E)

Grammaticality Judgement Task (GJT) and correction and finally F) Translation task (Greek

to English) (see Appendix B for the three versions). Task sequence is important since these

are assumed to measure from implicit to more explicit knowledge, with tasks C, D, E being

particularly problematic to define. Hulstijn (1997) for instance consents that it is unclear

whether GJTs measure more implicit or explicit knowledge. Utterances (as in Task A) tap

into implicit competence whereas explicit knowledge is demonstrated when learners slowly

build their sentences (as in Task F) or correct themselves (Paradis 1994). Overall, it is

impossible to access learner thoughts thus claims for implicit or explicit knowledge are

always tentative- even think aloud protocols are controversial for their effectiveness of

defining learner mental processes. More details on implicit and explicit knowledge as well

as the significance of including a battery of outcome measures is included in section 2.3.

For the oral elicitation task, students in individual meetings were shown three

pictures and asked to make a wish; responses would ideally be audio-recorded to include

pauses and paralinguistic features. However, no permission was given as audio-recording on

school grounds was against Greek legislation. Instead, the researcher and the teacher noted

down student responses by hand. This researcher triangulation in fact showed the notes

taken to be identical, something reasonably expected considering the short nature of the

utterances. Given utterance spontaneity and the relatively stressful conditions (time pressure,

individual meetings, unfamiliar researcher), task A can be argued to measure implicit

knowledge (Revesz 2012). The difference of Task B was that students wrote down the wish

B014594 30

instead of saying it. The pictures in tasks A and B may have acted as distracters (Revesz

2012); assuming that participant attention was directed to the pictures and meaning-making

further supports the claim of the tasks measuring implicit knowledge. The rest of the tasks

were completed in the classroom. For the multiple choice task, students had to choose the

sentence which best described the picture (the grammatical one). The fill in the gap task

asked participants to provide the correct form of the word given (i.e. a verb to follow

“wish”), the GJT to determine sentence grammaticality and subsequently correct the

mistakes, and the translation task involved translating sentences from Greek to English. The

last three tasks (D, E, F) included a number of distracters as well, to avoid raising student

awareness of what is being measured, which would have implications about noticing.

3.3.2 Classroom Observation

The study also employed a secondary method of data collection: during the treatment,

the researcher observed the treatment lessons and used note taking to control for teacher

deviations from the directions provided. Naturally, the optimal –and in fact original- idea

was to video-record the treatment which would result both in greater control and richer

qualitative data. However, video-recording of classrooms was also disallowed by legislation

in the particular context and for this reason note taking was used as a compromise. Even

though Doughty (2003) stresses the need to document the effects of instruction (i.e.

videotape), not all contexts allow this. Instead, observation and note taking attempted to

compensate for this limitation, even though Leow et al (2003) warn that the former produce

data of poor quality. In the case of researching instructed SLA and especially when children

participate, certain limitations need to be addressed and alternative, compensatory methods

employed.

Concurrently, observation and note taking were also employed to record any

interesting – to the researcher- comments related to the research questions and the areas of

attention and noticing. It has been suggested that verbal data ought to be collected during

online input processing (Rosa and O’ Neill 1999) yet the technique of think aloud protocols

has been argued to be problematic (see section 2.4.1). Nevertheless, learner responses and

comments made spontaneously, not following directions as in think-alouds, were noted

down. Admittedly, this method was loose and lacked rigour since there was no

B014594 31

predetermination and categorization of what comments might occur; yet some interesting

findings did in fact come up, in relation to students noticing the treatment. No claim is made

regarding absence of comments but the fact that students did spontaneously comment on

elements (VIE) that stroke them as unusual validates the reporting of these comments as

worthwhile. Hence, it consists a valid and natural record of spontaneous learner language.

3.4 Intervention

3.4.1 Grammatical Structure

Section 2.1.4 has elaborated on how to determine the difficulty of a grammatical

structure as well what criteria should guide choosing a structure for experimental treatment.

The grammatical structure of “wish” to express past regrets, present and future wishes and

complaints was chosen for this study (Dooley & Evans 1999). One of the reasons concerns

the intrinsic characteristics of the rule: it is highly meaningful and enabled the creation of

multiple measurement tasks including eliciting utterances while the primary focus is on

meaning-making. In addition, it is fairly simple and short, thus offering an unproblematic

target for visual enhancement; it is easy to manipulate graphically, since the structure stands

in close proximity to the word “wish”. It can be said to be a categorical rule, since its

application is fairly clear cut (Sharwood Smith 1994). For pedagogical reasons relating to

the young age of the learners, it was given as a rule of thumb: relative fuzziness concerning,

for example, the use of past simple or would+ infinitive was not included in either treatment

or scoring. It would be unrealistic to expect acquisition of such details from young non-

native speakers especially within the short treatment period.

Moreover, Hulstijn and DeGraaff (1994) regard explicit instruction facilitative if the

following conditions hold; a) the rule is complex, b) it has large score and high reliability, c)

it involves inflection/morphology rather than item learning, and d) it is semantically

redundant. Even though the rule could be categorized as simple due to correspondence with

the participants’ first language regarding the tenses that follow “wish” (past simple and past

perfect), there was also expected interference with a word following “wish” in Greek (να/ na)

which a number of participants in fact transferred in English as “wish to e.g. had”. What is

more, since the word “wish” carries the meaning itself, the grammatical structure can be

B014594 32

semantically redundant, which suggests a FonF approach to enhance noticing of the

structure as suggested in section 2.1 ).

3.4.2 Treatment

The treatment attempted to examine the effects of visual input enhancement, or, to be

more precise, “compound enhancement” (Han, Park and Combs 2008: 609), since the

strategy of explicit rule presentation was also employed as control. Two forty-five minute

lessons were delivered during actual class time, on two consequent days. The materials were

designed by the researcher to follow a FonF approach, thus operationalizing VIE as a FonF

technique. During treatment, the focus was on meaning, and the enhanced features carried

meaning necessary to complete the tasks.

Firstly, the teacher presented the rule on a whiteboard. Even though it might be

argued that FonF favours rule presentation and explanation in the middle of the instructional

process, it was placed in the beginning so as to adhere to the particular classroom culture

following negotiation with the school teacher and to minimize Hawthorne effects (Creswell

1998). Following rule presentation, the teacher introduced five instructional tasks which the

participants tackled in an informal, whole class approach. The content was fairly simple to

enable attention to focus on the target structure; VanPatten’ s (1990, 1994) studies suggest

that only with easily understood meaning, can learners direct their attention to forms and

turn them to intake.

More specifically, instructional task one was a children’s story and the questions

related to the meaning, plot and learners’ opinions. The experimental treatment involved

colour, boldface, and larger font of the structure (for the instructional tasks, refer to

Appendix C). The next task was a video extract and again the questions concerned the actors’

intentions. The enhancement here involved the structure appearing on screen concurrently to

being uttered. Task 3 involved some lyrics and the enhancement was colour, boldface and

underlining. In the next task students were asked to match headings to paragraphs and

enhancement was once more boldface, colour, underlining and larger font. Finally, in the

last instructional task students listened to a song and answered meaning oriented questions.

The lyrics appeared on screen as the song played and the target structure was enhanced for

the Rule + Enhancement group in the following way: it was coloured and flashing among

B014594 33

the other words. One should here note the possibility that the flashing words were

excessively salient, which Han, Park and Combs (2008) see as impeding processing.

3.4.3 Control

There was an aim to strongly control variables so as to confidently attribute any

between group differences to the enhancement. More specifically, it was intended that the

lessons for the two groups be identical –as far as possible- and based on the same materials,

with the exception of course of VIE for the Rule + Enhancement group. Robinson (1997)

holds that it is not possible to replicate instruction and exposure in classrooms with precision;

I would argue that even though there are difficulties and limitations, careful control of the

lesson process can generate sufficiently similar lessons.

On the one hand, there was an attempt to quantitative control: task guidelines and the

number of responses expected of learners were both highly specified. Following White et al.

(1991), the materials were prepared “in a tightly prescribed manner” to ensure the teaching

of the instructional tasks in the same order, manner and time. Despite the fact that

interaction and conversation have clear pedagogic value (Van Lier 1994), their incorporation

would result in loss of control in this piece of research and interactional elements were

therefore not included.

On the other hand, it was also attempted that the lessons would be qualitatively

controlled, in accordance to Hulstijn (1997). To achieve this, the teacher received a package

of instructions attempting to standardize the teaching process as best as possible. Even

though this technique lacks the rigour and reliability of laboratory, clear-cut studies, it

provides empirical support with high face validity. Hulstijn and DeGraaff (1994) make a

case for prerecorded explanations for tighter control; in this research instead of using a

computer, the teacher was given a detailed script to “recite”; this way both groups would get

identical input. There was thus an attempt to combine the ecological validity of the teacher’s

presence with the benefits of standardized instruction, notwithstanding the fact that

classrooms are highly unpredictable environments and learning is a co-constructive process.

Moreover, the teacher was trained not to use additional enhancement via body

language or auditory enhancement. Researcher observation of the treatment revealed some

B014594 34

additional kinesthetic enhancement (pointing finger to the structure) as well as two

additional examples of the structure besides those provided by the researcher. It seems that

teacher habits can be hard rooted; fortunately, those deviations from the instructions were

identical for the two groups (Rule and Rule + Enhancement) and can therefore be argued not

to be a great cause of concern.

Regarding feedback during instruction, recasts were employed to ensure

quantitatively same grammatical input for the two groups. This implicit form of feedback

(Doughty 2003; Ellis et al 2009) was chosen as fairly unobtrusive to avoid additional

enhancement, despite N. Ellis’ (2005) claim that recasts are noticed. Long and Robinson

(1998) also suggest that recasts are particularly salient; I would argue, however, that their

salience in normal instruction is the result of additional enhancement (auditory, kinesthetic)

by the teacher, which was generally avoided in this experiment. Revesz (2009: 440) seems

to concur that recasts are “the least intrusive of the implicit corrective strategies”, which

supports the researcher’s choice.

3.5 Data Scoring, Coding and Analysis

The raw data were scored using a detailed system and analyzed in terms of four

categories to account for differences in developmental sequences, instead of a strict

correct/incorrect pattern, following Revesz (2009). More specifically, student utterances was

given a point separately for using the word “wish”, the appropriate tense, succeeding in

meaning-making, and overall correctness. This last point was included to differentiate some

completely correct utterances from others that were scored as correct yet contained some

mistake not central to the wish structure. To illustrate this, “I wish I had *eated” would be

scored as correct for using “wish”, appropriate tense and communicating meaning yet would

not receive a point for overall correctness; it would therefore score three out of four.

Problematic past participle formation was not taken into account in the scoring process

(except for this last point) since it was not addressed in the treatment. Similarly, spelling and

other irrelevant to the structure mistakes were not considered. In this respect, Task A had a

total score of 12 (3 utterances x 4 points) and task B a total of 16 (4 x 4). Task C (multiple

choice) was coded in an absolute –correct/incorrect- way with a total of 12 (6 x 2). Task D

involved one point for grammaticality and one for meaning with a total of 12 (6 x 2). For

B014594 35

task E (the GJT) each correct sentence was attributed one point for judgement whereas each

incorrect sentence was given one for judgement and one for correction with a total of 10

points. Moreover, a record was kept for the number of irrelevant corrections made,

following the hypothesis that these might indicate test effects or relate to increased

awareness. Task F was scored in the same way as A with a total of 16 (4 x 4). (For a visual

illustration of the scoring system and an example see Appendix D.)

Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) make a claim about coding in favor of absolute errors

and against dispreferred forms. They argue that the latter constitute “subjective judgements

of acceptability (pp. 59) and are better avoided. Nevertheless, I coded grammatically correct

but dispreferred forms as correct; the reason is that such subtle differences as, e.g. “I wish

you didn’t do that” and “I wish you wouldn’t do that” were neither addressed in the

treatment nor reasonably expected to be grasped by EFL speakers, especially in such short

time.

Subsequently, each participant received a total score for each measurement task in

each of the test versions. These scores were then entered into SPSS (Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences) for quantitative, statistical analysis with mixed design ANOVAs. This

procedure accommodates experiments including two participant groups and seeking to

examine the effects of the experimental manipulation over time, in this case using a pretest,

posttest, and delayed posttest design (Field 2010). The two groups (Rule and Rule +

enhancement) were compared against each other for their mean total scores in the three test

versions as well as the mean scores for each task, according to the hypothesis that

instruction might favour specific types of knowledge which in turn are measured more

effectively with different outcome measures. The next chapter presents in detail the findings

of the analyses and their discussion.

B014594 36

4 Findings and discussion

After the encoding of the data, these were entered into SPSS for statistical analysis.

Taken that the interest laid in group differences, explanatory analyses were conducted for

each group, following Field (2010), to examine whether the criteria for the conduct of

ANOVAs were met; the analysis revealed that the data exhibited homogeneity of variance1

and were borderline parametric2, which could allow the conduct of ANOVAs.

Specifically, mixed design one way ANOVAs were conducted first for the total

scores obtained in each test and then for each task separately. The choice of a mixed design

served to analyze repeated measures (pre-test, post-test, delayed post-test) in a between

group design with different participants for the two conditions, i.e. Rule, and Rule +

Enhancement (Field 2010). The results are reported along with descriptive statistics (means

and standard deviations) and visually with graphs. It will become evident that the ways

knowledge changes differ for each measurement task. In total, the two groups grand means

seem to change in parallel (Figure 1) which points to a non- effect of visual input

enhancement but an overall effect of instruction. However, if one examines how the means

change differently for each measurement task, a much more complicated picture appears.

Finally, the relatively large standard deviations indicate differences in abilities among

learners (see Table 1).

1 An initial examination of the two group results revealed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance is

met: Lavene’s test showed that for the total scores in all the three tests, the variances were equal. For the

pre-test, F (1, 50) = 1.426, ns (0.238> 0.05). For the post-test, F (1, 50) = 0.042, ns (0.838>0.05). For the

delayed post-test, F (1, 50) = 0.961, ns (0.332> 0.05).

2 The test for the normality of the distributions, however, is not as clear. For the Pre-test, the control group

exhibits a normal distribution but the experiment group does not: for the control group, D (27) = 0.112,

0.200> 0.05 but for the experiment group, D (25) = 0.187, 0.024< 0.05. The situation is reversed in the

subsequent tests. More specifically, in the post-test, the control group shows non-normal distribution, D (27)

= 0.189, 0.015< 0.05 whereas the experiment group has a normal distribution, D (25) = 0.163, 0.085> 0.05.

The same holds for the delayed post-test, where the control scores are non-normally distributed, D (27) =

0.192, 0.012< 0.05 but the experiment group scores are, D (25) = 0.141, 0.200> 0.05. Nevertheless, the

Shapiro Wilk test tells a different story, assuming equal variances for both groups in the pre-test but not for

the post- and delayed post-test.

B014594 37

4.1 Total test findings

The tests of within subjects effects showed a significant difference between the

results obtained in each test; therefore we can conclude that instruction played a significant

role, even though there was no uninstructed control group for the two groups to be compared

against. More specifically, the results3 show that the scores students obtained were affected

by the time the test was taken (pre-test, post-test, delayed post-test), F (1.55, 77.79) = 7.11,

p < 0.05 and contrasts showed an effect size r = 0.36. Nevertheless, the interaction time x

group was insignificant, which indicates that the way the scores improved through time was

not different for each group, F (1.55, 77.79) = 0.01, p > 0.05, with contrasts showing the

trivial effect size r = 0.02. The fact that the group effect was insignificant, F (1, 50) = 2.07, p

> 0.05 tells us that both Rule and Rule + Enhancement participants’ scores changed

basically along the same lines, even though the effect size r = 0.199 points to a relatively

small effect. As one can observe in Figure 1, the scores change for the two groups in parallel,

therefore, visual enhancement does not seem to influence language learning, as measured by

the whole test. In other words, whether learners receive visual input enhancement in addition

to rule presentation does not appear to result in greater gains in their learning of the “wish”

structure. Another interesting point is that instruction gains are retained in the delayed

posttest as well, which contradicts the common finding that instruction has short-term

effects (Norris and Ortega 2000; Long and Robinson 1998).

3 . Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, x2 (2) = 16.46, p < 0.05,

therefore multivariate tests are reported, ε = 0.77.

B014594 38

Figure 1: Change of mean scores for total test score.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the total test scores

Group Scores N Mean Std. Deviation

Rul

e

Total Score in Test 1 27 42.9630 17.14527

Total Score in Test 2 27 48.1111 15.30041

Total Score in Test 3 27 48.0741 17.85395

Valid N (listwise) 27

Rul

e

+En

han

cem

ent

Total Score in Test 1 25 49.3200 14.22650

Total Score in Test 2 25 54.0400 16.25700

Total Score in Test 3 25 53.9200 16.87187

Valid N (listwise) 25

Having looked at the effect of instruction and visual enhancement in the total scores

obtained in the test, it is interesting to investigate in more detail any possible effects of

instruction and especially VIE (as measured in three different times) on different tasks4.

4 Owing to lack of space, I will not report the results of Mauchly’s test for each task; but according to whether

the sphericity assumption is met or not, the appropriate result is chosen and reported; in cases where the

assumption is violated, the Greenhouse-Geisser corrected tests are reported.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3

Me

an

s fo

r T

ota

l S

core

sTotal Scores

Rule

Rule + Enhancement

B014594 39

4.2 Task A findings (picture cued oral elicitation task)

For Task A, the multivariate Pillai’s trace test showed a significant change across

time, as measured by the three versions of the task, V (2, 49) = 0.41, p < 0.05 indicating a

positive effect of instruction. However, the interaction time x group was insignificant, V (2,

49) = 0.01, p > 0.05. Moreover, the univariate test of within subjects effects confirms the

significant effect of time/instruction, F (1.86, 93.34) = 21.67, p < 0.05, r = 0.626 and the

non-significant effect of the intercept time x group, F (1.86, 93.34) = 0.24, p >0.05, r =

0.019. The test of between subjects effects revealed no statistically significant difference

between the two groups, F (1, 50) = 1.326, p > 0.05, r = 0.16; therefore, the scores of both

the Rule and the Rule + Enhancement group changed similarly across the three tests. This

means that instruction had positive effects on learner knowledge as measured by task A, but

VIE did not appear to create any greater effect. Figure 2 illustrates the way scores in task A

changed across the three versions while Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics.

Figure 2: Change of mean scores for task A

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3

Me

an

sco

res

for

task

A

Scores for Task A

Rule

Rule + Enhancement

1- Pretest

2- Posttest

3- Delayed posttest

B014594 40

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for Task A scores

Group Scores N Mean Std. Deviation

Rul

e

Score inTest 1 Task 1 27 5.48 3.490

Score in Test 2 Task 1 27 7.15 3.097

Score in Test 3 Task 1 27 8.15 2.797

Valid N (listwise) 27

Rul

e +

Enh

anc

eme

nt

Score inTest 1 Task 1 25 6.16 3.749

Score in Test 2 Task 1 25 8.40 3.500

Score in Test 3 Task 1 25 8.96 3.541

Valid N (listwise) 25

4.3 Task B findings (picture cued written elicitation task)

The results obtained for Task B follow similar lines: the multivariate test (Pillai’s

trace) showed that the scores changed significantly over time, V (2, 49) = 0.35, p < 0.05.

Nevertheless, the intercept of time and group was insignificant, V (2, 49) = 0.12, p > 0.05.

The univariate tests confirm this: there were significant within-subjects effects relevant to

each test version, F (1.59, 79.94) = 0.16, p < 0.05, r = 0.487. However, there were no

significant group effects, as the between subjects tests show, F (1, 50) = 0.82, p > 0.05, r =

0.127. This indicates an effect of instruction for both groups with however no significant

differences between the two groups, in accordance to the findings for task A. Table 3

provides the means and standard deviations for task B scores and Figure 3 a graphic

illustration of the similar way the two groups developed.

B014594 41

Figure 3: Change of mean scores for Task B

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for Task B scores

Group Scores N Mean Std. Deviation

Rul

e

Score in Test 1 Task 2 27 8.63 4.908

Score in Test 2 Task 2 27 11.11 4.273

Score in Test 3 Task 2 27 11.11 4.098

Valid N (listwise) 27

Rul

e +

Enh

anc

eme

nt

Score in Test 1 Task 2 25 9.52 5.716

Score in Test 2 Task 2 25 12.52 4.529

Score in Test 3 Task 2 25 12.00 4.848

Valid N (listwise) 25

4.4 Task C findings (multiple choice task)

For task C, the multivariate Pillai’s trace shows a significant change of scores across

the three versions, V (2, 49) = 0.13, p < 0.05, even though once more the interaction group x

time is non-significant, V (2, 49) = 0.01, p > 0.05. However, the univariate test of within

subjects effects showed no statistically significant change across the scores in the three

versions of task three, F (1.80, 90.22) = 2.65, p > 0.05, r = 0.19. Moreover, once again the

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3

Me

an

sco

res

for

Ta

sk B

Scores for Task B

Rule

Rule + Enhancement

B014594 42

between subjects tests showed no group effect, in other words no significant difference

between the change in scores for the two groups, F (1, 50) = 1.80, p >0.05, r = 0.186. VIE

did not seem to affect any further gains in learning as measured by the multiple choice task

either. Figure 4 is illustrative of the complexity of the statistical findings: there are minimal

gains in the post-test (slightly better for the Rule + Enhancement group) yet these are lost in

the delayed post-test, where in fact there appears to be loss of knowledge present in the pre-

test. Table 4 also describes these means.

Figure 4: Change of mean scores for Task C

Table 4: Descriptive statistics for Task C

Group Scores N Mean Std. Deviation

Rul

e

Score in Test 1 Task 3 27 7.26 3.768

Score in Test 2 Task 3 27 8.00 2.987

Score in Test 3 Task 3 27 6.22 4.163

Valid N (listwise) 27

Rul

e +

Enh

anc

eme

nt

Score in Test 1 Task 3 25 8.32 3.449

Score in Test 2 Task 3 25 8.48 3.525

Score in Test 3 Task 3 25 7.52 3.429

Valid N (listwise) 25

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3

Me

an

sco

res

for

Ta

sk C

Scores for Task C

Rule

Rule + Enhancement

B014594 43

4.5 Task D findings (fill in the gap)

The multivariate Pillai’s trace for Task D indicates a significant change in scores

across the three versions as well, V (2, 49) = 0.25, p < 0.05 but not for the interaction of time

x group, V (2, 49) = 0.00, p > 0.05. The univariate within subjects tests support the

multivariate test; there seems to be a significant difference in scores across the three

versions, F (1.73, 86.59) = 7.85, p < 0.05, r = 0.458. On the other hand, there were no

significant differences between the scores of the two groups (Rule and Rule + Enhancement),

as the between subjects effects test indicates, F (1, 50) = 1.29, p > 0.05, r = 0.158. Once

more, instruction appears to result in gains in knowledge while additional VIE does not

indicate additional gains, as measured by this task. Table 5 specifies the values of score

means and standard deviations and Figure 5 illustrates the findings: the gains in knowledge

appear similar for the two groups and surprisingly, additional growth occurs in the delayed

post-test. Naturally, one needs to be cautious of test effects and the possibility of students

having encountered the structure in private tutoring.

Figure 5: Change of mean scores for Task D

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3

Me

an

sco

res

for

Ta

sk D

Scores for Task D

Rule

Rule + Enhancement

B014594 44

Table 5: Descriptive statistics for Task D

Group Scores N Mean Std. Deviation

Rul

e

Score in Test 1 Task 4 27 7.63 2.789

Score in Test 2 Task 4 27 8.22 2.423

Score in Test 3 Task 4 27 9.15 2.349

Valid N (listwise) 27

Rul

e +

Enh

anc

eme

nt

Score in Test 1 Task 4 25 8.36 1.997

Score in Test 2 Task 4 25 8.84 2.285

Score in Test 3 Task 4 25 9.60 2.432

Valid N (listwise) 25

4.6 Task E findings (GJT and correction)

Regarding task E, the initial multivariate Pillai’s trace test showed an insignificant

change in scores, although it was very close to significance, V (2, 49) = 0.11, p > 0.05 (p =

0.052). The interaction of time x group was once again insignificant, V (2, 49) = 0.05, p >

0.05. However, the univariate within subjects tests showed a significant change of scores

across the three versions, presumably as an effect of instruction, F (1.99, 99.64) = 3.39, p <

0.05, even though the effect size was moderate to small, r = 0.296. Once again, the between

subjects effects tests indicated no significant differences between the Rule and Rule +

Enhancement group scores, F (1, 50) = 2.60, p > 0.05, with a small effect size r = 0.222. The

complex statistical results are better clarified looking at their graphic representation (Figure

6) and the actual way the mean scores change (Table 6); one observes that the Rule groups’

scores deteriorated after the treatment while the Rule + Enhancement group’s scores were

held constant. Simple rule provision had negative results for a GJT whereas rule and

additional VIE seems to have no effect at all.

Another possibility could be that VIE in fact is facilitative and compensates for the

negative effect of rule provision, a hypothesis that could be supported by the effect size and

would concur to Robinson’s (1997) finding that enhanced learning conditions result in better

GJTs. The effect sizes for task E suggest a role of VIE relating more to teaching and testing

discrete points rather than a more holistic approach to language acquisition. This also

B014594 45

supports the research finding that views enhancement as more facilitative once the structure

has been learned, for further elaboration and consolidation (Han, Park & Combs 2008).

Finally, The GJT points to a very interesting insight: the large number of irrelevant

corrections students made could indicate that learners were in fact unaware of what was

being tested and their attention during task completion was dispersed along numerous

grammatical elements. In this sense, it is confirmed that it is impossible to hypothesize

which type of knowledge students employed, implicit or explicit.

Figure 6: Change of mean scores for task E

Table 6: Descriptive statistics for Task E

Group Scores N Mean Std. Deviation

Rul

e

Score in Test 1 Task 5 27 5.67 3.174

Score in Test 2 Task 5 27 5.48 2.376

Score in Test 3 Task 5 27 5.33 3.076

Valid N (listwise) 27

Rul

e +

Enh

anc

eme

nt

Score in Test 1 Task 5 25 7.44 2.274

Score in Test 2 Task 5 25 6.08 2.914

Score in Test 3 Task 5 25 6.28 3.076

Valid N (listwise) 25

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3

Me

an

sco

res

for

Ta

sk E

Scores for Task E

Rule

Rule + Enhancement

B014594 46

4.7 Task F findings (Translation)

Finally, for Task E, Pillai’s trace shows a highly insignificant change in scores

obtained in the three task versions, V (2, 49) = 0.00, p > 0.05. The time x group interaction

was typically insignificant, V (2, 49) = 0.00, p > 0.05. The univariate tests further confirm

this; tests of within subjects effects revealed a highly insignificant difference in scores

across the three versions, F (1.86, 93.01) = 0.04, p > 0.05 , confirmed by the trivial effect

size r = 0.028. This means that the scores for task six remained roughly the same in the three

task versions in the pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test. The tests of between subjects

effects also showed that there were no significant differences in score changes between the

groups, F (1, 50) = 3.10, p > 0.05, yet with a small effect size r = 0.241. Similarly to the

findings for task E above, this effect size, nevertheless small, might account for the

peculiarity of the graph in Figure 7 and the changes of means in Table 7. Surprisingly, the

scores of the Rule + Enhancement group deteriorated after the treatment whilst the Rule

group’s scores improved. Yet, in the delayed post-test, all changes disappeared and learners

in both groups returned to their original scores. Measured by a translation task, thus, VIE

seems to actually impede learning, as this is evidenced by learner performed knowledge.

These complex results have implications about explicit knowledge. Although it

might be difficult to determine the precise reason for these shifts in knowledge, it could be

argued that explicit knowledge is prone to change yet without long term effects. Attributing

this characteristic to explicit knowledge can explain both the different situation of retained

knowledge gains in the previous tasks and the agreement with the general literature (e.g.

Norris and Ortega 2000; Long & Robinson 1998; Truscott 1998). In other words, the effects

of instruction in explicit knowledge (positive or negative) failed to be established in long

term memory and were lost as fast as three weeks later.

B014594 47

Figure 7: Change of mean scores for Task F

Table 7: Descriptive statistics for Task F

Group Scores N Mean Std. Deviation

Rul

e

Score in Test 1 Task 6 27 8.30 3.244

Score in Test 2 Task 6 27 8.15 3.790

Score in Test 3 Task 6 27 8.11 3.577

Valid N (listwise) 27

Rul

e +

Enh

anc

eme

nt

Score in Test 1 Task 6 25 9.52 2.257

Score in Test 2 Task 6 25 9.72 2.509

Score in Test 3 Task 6 25 9.56 3.441

Valid N (listwise) 25

4.8 Discussion

In sum, tasks A, B and D (Oral and Written picture cued elicitation task and Fill in

the gap task) indicate a significant difference in scores in the three versions; instruction can

be argued to be the reason for this effect. Tasks C and F (Multiple choice and translation

tasks) showed no significant change in scores in the three versions and task E (GJT) was

found to be borderline significant. Overall, the variable of “group” had no statistically

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

1 2 3

Me

an

sco

res

for

Ta

sk F

Scores for Task F

Rule

Rule + Enhancement

B014594 48

significant effect on the change of scores; Rule and Rule + Enhancement group scores

changed along the same lines. Therefore, it can be argued that both groups benefited from

instruction, as the increase in their mean scores indicated (see Table 1 above), but VIE did

not in general result in statistically significant greater effects.

It is clear from the analysis that the importance of using multiple outcome measures

cannot be overestimated. The hypothesis that different measures will require the students to

tap into different types of knowledge has largely been confirmed. It can be argued that

instruction benefited both groups in accordance to previous research (e.g. Norris & Ortega

2000; Robinson 1996; Doughty 1991), since they obtained better results in the post test,

results that were retained even in the delayed post-test. Regarding the latter, this statement

must be presented tentatively since it could not be fully controlled that students would not

encounter the “wish” structure in the period between the treatment and the delayed post-test.

Even though they did not receive any additional lessons about it in the state school, the

possibility of encountering it in private tutoring was beyond the researcher’s control.

Naturally, test effects could have also played a role. In general, however, and as the tightly

controlled post-test indicates, instruction did have a significant effect on learning, or, to be

more precise, on the knowledge students were able to display through the tasks.

Effect size of the treatment was relatively large for task A, (r = 0.626), medium for

tasks B and D (r = 0.487 and r = 0.458 respectively), and small for tasks C, E and F (r =

0.19, r = 0.296 and r = 0.028 respectively). Despite some confusion in the middle tasks –

expected, since it has been argued how difficult it is to define what type of knowledge

learners are going to use for each task- instruction appears to have greater effects on learners’

implicit rather than explicit knowledge; as the tasks move from testing implicit to explicit

knowledge, effect sizes decrease accordingly. More specifically, it appears that instruction

favoured implicit knowledge considering that changes in oral production are viewed as

evidence of changes in learner interlanguage (White et al. 1991). The gains in tasks A and B

were the greatest, disconfirming Terrell (1991) who sees instruction facilitative only for

discrete point tests but not oral production. It also disconfirms Hulstijn and DeGraaff’s

(1994) claim that explicit instruction has a limited effect on language production.

Nevertheless, this incongruence could be explained by a further hypothesis they make that

B014594 49

aiming at production, explicit instruction might be better for formal linguistic features

whereas for comprehension instruction should be based on meaningful grammatical features.

In other words, the type and focus of instruction needs to be matched with the measurement

tasks. In this respect, a FonF approach appears to be more effective for free, oral or written,

production tasks.

In contrast to the gains in tasks A and B, no significant difference in scores is

reported for the multiple choice task. Similarly, the translation task, assumed to tap explicit

knowledge, exhibited no score growth after instruction with however some group

differences, while the GJT showed only small differences in score gains, again with between

group differences. These incongruences observed among tasks relate to previous

contradictory research on the effects of instruction and textual enhancement and more

specifically the effects on acquisition or comprehension. Leow et al. (2003); Wong (2003) ;

Alanen (1995) report no effect of VIE on acquisition or performance whereas Lee (2007),

Jourdenais et al (1995), Doughty (1991) and White et al. (1991) contrastingly report effects

on form learning, output and accuracy respectively. These opposing results could then be

attributed to different measurement tasks; for instance error correction and free recall (Wong

2003), sentence completion and GJT (Alanen 1995) or form elicitation in a production task

(Jourdenais et al (1995).

Observation of the experimental condition revealed that students did notice the

enhancement at the perceptual level. While attempting to answer meaning-oriented

questions, a student prompted another that the answer is “where the red [letters] are”,

supporting the claim that “local comprehension”, or the comprehension of the part of text

containing the enhancement would more validly indicate the effect of enhancement on

comprehension (Han, Park and Combs 2008: 604). This might have implications for a

facilitative effect of VIE on comprehension, in agreement with Wong (2003) and Doughty

(1991). In effect, learner attention was particularly attracted in the listening task, where

words where flashing. Bursts of laughs and comments such as “it is trembling”, “it has

Parkinson’s” were noted down. This all supports the argument that the enhancement was

perceptually salient and noticed; nevertheless, the statistically insignificant results indicate

that the enhancement did not seem to facilitate the conversion of input to intake above that

B014594 50

achieved by explicit instruction, in support of Truscott and Sharwood Smith’s (2011)

modular view of the mind. More specifically, the findings support that despite being visually

noticed, the enhanced input was not further processed in the second language domain of the

mind, as no additional gains in knowledge were noted as compared to the Rule group. In

other words, despite the fact of having been processed at the perceptual level –at the visual

cognitive domain-, VIE did not result in deeper level processing and any further encoding in

long term memory. In this respect, the findings agree with Han, Park and Combs’ (2008:

602) conclusion that “enhanced forms may attract attention but may fall short of further

processing”.

Furthermore, no significant differences appeared between the two groups, which

disconfirms the hypothesis that VIE is facilitative to language acquisition. Considering,

however, the small sample size, the effect sizes become important (Field 2010), since they

indicate a small, on average, effect of group in the scores obtained; a total of r = 0.199

points to some small difference between the groups, which could be attributed to visual

enhancement. As the tasks move from more implicit to more explicit knowledge –

presumably, at least- the effect sizes increase, although minimally. The largest effect sizes of

enhancement are observed for tasks five and six (r = 0.222 and r = 0.241 respectively); the

curious case is that VIE seems to have either beneficial or impeding effects on acquired

knowledge, as Figures 6 and 7 above illustrate.

Interestingly, effect size is negative for task F, indicating loss in knowledge. It might

seem reasonable to hypothesize that the visual enhancement made the learners more aware

of what they were being taught in accordance to Rosa and O’ Neil’s (1991) finding of a

positive correlation between explicitness of instruction and awareness. Enhancement might

have raised student awareness already; the translation task, asking for the application of

explicit knowledge can have raised learner awareness of what was being expected from

them even more. Excessive awareness seems to have interfered with accurate production and

inhibited the performance of focused explicit knowledge. One possible explanation could be

Schmidt’s (1995) argument that overly conscious learners despite having abstract

knowledge, lack the ability to perform. It is possible, then that the excessive salience caused

by VIE, instruction, and measurement task dramatically increased awareness and made

B014594 51

learners overly conscious with detrimental effects for production. Lee (2007) as well as Han,

Park and Combs (2008) warn against excessive salience impeding meaning comprehension;

one might add accurate production.

This awareness might have not appeared in the initial tasks designed to measure

implicit knowledge due to task characteristics such as limited response time or the pressure

of the researcher’s presence. This also explains why gains were observed for the first tasks:

time pressure and more stressful conditions could have forced naturalistic speech production,

unmonitored –or less monitored- by explicit knowledge. The last tasks, on the contrary,

could have allowed for awareness to manifest itself. Even though Leow (2000) reports a

positive correlation between awareness and accuracy, there might as well be a threshold

level after which production in actually impeded; this is what the poor results in task F

indicate, as opposed to tasks A and B which were presumably completed with less

awareness. It is interesting that the first two tasks, measuring implicit knowledge, showed

the greatest benefits of instruction but the smallest differences between the two groups; this

finding suggests that language acquisition (instead of learning, to borrow Krashen’s (1982)

distinction), or naturalistic, fluent, and fast speech production, remains generally

uninfluenced by externally induced input manipulation.

The small differences in gain between the groups, as evidenced by the effect sizes,

could indicate, not a quantitative difference in learning or knowledge, but instead a

qualitative shift in the attention they paid to the input, in the everyday use of the word

“attention”. This could also explain why group differences were observed mostly in tasks

measuring explicit knowledge: having paid more attention during the lessons, the Rule +

Enhancement group learners might have been more aware of the researcher’s intention to

measure the particular structure, and monitored themselves towards this direction. In this

sense, it relates to the most basic form of noticing as expressed by, for instance, Truscott

(1988), or to “detection”, to quote Tomlin and Villa (1994). Despite the criticisms of its

theoretical value, it remains an unquestionable fact of classroom reality and can indeed be

problematic in itself for many teachers.

Even without any significant gains in learning, it is still possible that the small effect

size of enhancement is the outcome of more focused attention; a possible role for

B014594 52

enhancement in instructed SLA could thus be the attraction of learner attention. Admittedly,

this refers to the trivial, low level of attention and noticing (Truscott and Sharwood Smith

2011; Truscott 1998; Schmidt 1995) which, however, might have important pedagogical

implications. The observations suggest that the more robust the enhancement, the more

learner attention is directed to the input yet without the claims Gascoigne (2006) makes for

acquisition. The mere fact that participants noticed the enhancement and were involved in

commenting on it as well as the observation that the Rule + Enhancement group participated

and was involved with the materials more, suggests a role for enhancement in instructed

SLA. This relates to capturing learners’ attention and directing it to the input. Despite the

criticism of being trivial, even such noticing has some practical value in classroom reality,

especially when it comes to young learners’ attention, which is notoriously prone to drifting.

4.9 Summary

Overall, instruction seemed to result in significant knowledge gains, which were

largely retained in the delayed posttest; these gains were greater for tasks measuring implicit

knowledge and smaller for explicit. On the other hand, VIE did not result in significantly

greater gains in knowledge, although some tentative claims about capturing learner attention

and increasing awareness can be made.

The present study materialized a commonly expressed argument regarding the need

to use multiple measures of learner knowledge and performance (e.g. Revesz 2012), as well

as the argument that such different measures in various studies are the reason for contested

results (Norris and Ortega 2000). Indeed, by using six tasks to measure learner performance

and comparing the results for each task, it is clarified that the role of multiple measures

cannot be overestimated: learners showed different gains for each task after instruction,

ranging from no gains at all to reasonably large gains, interestingly including some losses as

well (task F). This explains the contested nature of previous studies: it seems now

reasonable to claim that the nature of the measure impacts on the results. In this respect,

methodological differences can explain the contradictory findings of a positive effect of

enhancement in, e.g. Robinson (1997) and Lee (2007) and on the other hand, no effect of

enhancement in Leow et al. (2003) or Wong (2003). Furthermore, this also indicates the

non-generalizability of this type of study: so many parameters are in interplay, including the

B014594 53

nature of the structure, the lesson treatment, the experimental manipulation and the outcome

measures, that it becomes difficult to reach any fast conclusions about the benefits of

enhancement. Research in the field is better viewed cumulatively, and meta-analysis may

have the potential to locate patterns and make generalizations.

B014594 54

5 Conclusion

To sum up, the noticing hypothesis, the issues of awareness and attention, as well as

the concepts of salience and input enhancement have formed the theoretical basis of this

piece of research. The rationale for the study emerged from the fact that the literature on the

effects of visual enhancement seemed inconclusive and even contradictory, which could be

attributed to the plethora of methodological inconsistencies across studies. More specifically,

contested results obscured the relationship of VIE and form acquisition, meaning

comprehension as well as noticing.

The present study aspired to explore the effects of visual input enhancement on

language learning, evidenced by changes in learner knowledge measured by performance.

More specifically, it sought to determine if VIE affected the acquisition of the “wish”

structure for lower intermediate young learners. At the same time, following the theoretical

discussions regarding the nature of implicit and explicit types of knowledge, it was

attempted to investigate which knowledge type would exhibit greater gains after the

treatment. Improvements in knowledge were measured by utilizing a pretest, posttest,

delayed posttest research design; each test version comprised of six outcome measure tasks

ordered to measure knowledge moving from implicit to explicit. The treatment employed a

pedagogically valued FonF approach for both of the two groups, i.e. Rule and Rule +

Enhancement. The visual enhancement for the second group included colour, boldface,

larger font, underlining and flashing words. Apart from the scores obtained in the three test

versions, observation and note taking also served to record student reactions to the treatment.

5.1 Summary of findings and implications

The analysis indicated that instruction resulted in significant gains in knowledge, as

demonstrated by the advanced scores obtained in the posttest, compared to the ones in the

pretest. Interestingly, the greatest effects of instruction were reported for the initial tasks

which had been assumed to measure implicit knowledge; these gains were also retained in

the delayed posttest. In contrast, the last tasks, requiring the application of explicit

knowledge, showed changes in knowledge (either positive or negative for each of the two

groups) in the posttest yet subsequently lost in the delayed posttest. This might indicate that

explicit knowledge is prone to change yet with no long term results. This distinction

B014594 55

between knowledge types and the opposing finding of implicit knowledge being retained

and explicit lost can account for the partial disagreement with previous studies finding no

long term effects (e.g. Norris and Ortega 2000; Long and Robinson 1998); these could be

related only to explicit knowledge.

On the other hand, no statistically significant greater effects were observed for the

Rule + Enhancement group that received additional visual enhancement, suggesting that

perceptual saliency does not link to learning or facilitate the acquisition of knowledge. In

fact, observation suggested that some students did visually notice the enhancement since

they intuitively commented on it, yet this did not generate any greater changes in knowledge.

The theoretical implications of this supports Truscott and Sharwood Smith’s (2011)

argument that the visual cognitive domain of the mind and the one responsible for L2

acquisition are distinct; it appears that input processed in the first does not guarantee

subsequent processing in the language domain and does not result in acquisition.

However, effect sizes indicated some small effect of VIE; this applies mostly to the

last tasks assumed to measure explicit knowledge and are in fact both positive and negative

(for the translation task). This could point to another theoretical implication: a possible

explanation for the negative effect might be that learner over-alertness interfered with

accurate production, as Schmidt (1995) has hypothesized. These differences among tasks

could also indicate differences in the ways learners approached each task and what type of

knowledge they resorted to.

Most significantly, the study reported different results considering the effectiveness

of instruction as well as VIE for each one of the outcome measure tasks employed. This

suggests that the nature of the measurement tasks themselves influence the results, which

could explain the contradictory findings of previous research. These differentiated outcomes

have been hypothesized to stem from the fact that different tasks are expected to cause

learners to tap into more implicit or more explicit knowledge and this hypothesis appears to

have been largely confirmed. In this respect, instruction appeared to affect more implicit

knowledge, whereas the effect sizes might suggest a slight effect of VIE on explicit

knowledge, either positive or negative. This can be argued to have strong methodological

implications: since six measurements tasks produced, more or less, six different results

B014594 56

regarding the effectiveness of instruction and VIE, it becomes obvious that studies on

instructed SLA and VIE cannot be generalizable but could function collectively; meta-

analysis might have the potential to detect patterns and suggest more conclusive arguments.

Furthermore, there is an important pedagogical implication, even though of little

theoretical value. The treatment observations suggest that enhancement, and in particular the

most robust types (e.g. flashing words) can help direct learner attention to the input and the

instructional tasks. Despite the fact that no claims can be made about the outcome of

language learning, this finding is informative and could find applications in the process of

instruction; in fact, VIE could prove beneficial in cases of attentional drifting and learner

lack of focus.

5.2 Limitations and future research

It has already been explained that the results of this study- or any similar study, in

fact- cannot be generalizable due to the complexity of constructs such as knowledge,

enhancement and instruction. The biggest limitation of the present study probably concerns

its lack of rigorous documentation of the instructional process, since the observation

indicated elements relating to noticing that require careful examination. The context the

research was conducted disallowed video-recording of the treatment and note-taking was a

necessary compromise. Further research can employ a more qualitative stance in a video-

recording permitting environment. Analysis of the process of learning itself could imply

ways VIE can influence learning instead of focusing on the attained outcome, something the

present study could not address due to the methodological limitations discussed above. This

suggestion for more qualitative analysis is further justified by the fact that in instructed SLA

and classroom reality the process of learning is not unrelated to the final product itself.

B014594 57

6 References

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition.

In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302).

Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.

Brown, H. D. (2002): English language teaching in the “Post-Method” era: Towards better

diagnosis, treatment, and assessment In: Richards, J. C. and Renandya, W. A. (Eds.)

Methodology of language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 9-18). Cambridge:

Cambridge U.P.

Corder, S. P. (1967): The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL 5 (4), 161-170.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),

The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.

DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language

morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.

DeKeyser, R. D. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a

miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.

Dooley, J. & Evans, V. (1999). Grammarway 3. Berkshire: Express Publishing.

Dörnyei Zoltán. 2009. The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J.

Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310).

Oxford: Blackwell.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an

empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.

B014594 58

Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Selective attention and transfer Phenomena in L2 acquisition:

Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking and

perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27 (2), 164-194.

Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied

Linguistics 27 (1), 1-24.

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language

knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 305-352.

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 297-339.

Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning: An overview. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.),

Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1-32). London: Academic Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.),

Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79-114). London: Academic Press.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J. & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and

explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Great Britain: Short

Run Press Ltd.

Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Field, A. (2010 3rd ed.). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.

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

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

Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and

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

Harley, B. (1994). Appealing to consciousness in the L2 classroom. AILA Review, 11, 57-68.

B014594 59

Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). SLA research in the laboratory; Possibilities and limitations. Studies

in second language acquisition, 19, 131-143.

Hulstijn, J. H. & De Graaff, R. (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., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B. & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual

enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),

Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183-216). Manoa: University of

Hawaii Press.

Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006): TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL

Quarterly 40 (1), 59-81.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001): Grammar. In: Carter, R. and Nunan, D. (Eds), The Cambridge

guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 34-41). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Lee, S. K. (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.

Leow, R. P. (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. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language

Learning, 47 (3), 467-505.

Leow, R. P., Egi, T., Nuevo, A. M., & Tsai, Y. C. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement

and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied

Language Learning, 13 (2), 1-16.

B014594 60

Long, M. H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. J.

Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15-41). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and

quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50 (3), 417-528.

Nunan. D. (2004): Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.

Oxford University Press and University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (2001).

Oxford quick placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications

for bilingualism and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages

(pp. 393-419). London: Academic Press.

Revesz, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different

L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62 (1), 93-132.

Revesz, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437-470.

Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during second language acquisition. In C. J.

Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-

678). Oxford: Blackwell.

Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under

implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 19, 223-247.

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit,

incidental, rule search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

18, 27-67.

Robinson, P. (1995). Review article: Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis.

Language Learning, 45 (2), 283-331.

B014594 61

Rosa, E. & O’ Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: another

piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A tutorial on the role of

attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign

language learning (pp. 1-63). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.

Scmidt, R. (1994). Implicit Learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars

and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165-209).

London: Academic Press.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied

linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-

226.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11 (2), 129-158.

Schwarz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence

and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (2), 147-163.

Sharwood Smith, M. A. (1994). The unruly world of language. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit

and explicit learning of languages (pp. 33-43). London: Academic Press.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 15 (2), 165-179.

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 (2), 118-132.

Swain, M. (2002): The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition through

Collaborative Dialogue. In J. P Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language

Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford U.P.

B014594 62

Terrell, T. D. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. The

Modern Language Journal, 75 (1), 52-63.

Tomlin, R. S. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language

acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in SLA: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14,

103-135.

Truscott, J. & Sharwood Smith, M. (2011). Input, intake, and consciousness: The quest for a

theoretical foundation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (4) 497-528.

Van Lier, L. (2001): Language awareness. In Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (Eds.) The Cambridge

guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 160-165). Cambridge:

Cambridge U.P.

Van Lier, L. (1994). Language awareness, contingency, and interaction. AILA Review, 11,

69-82.

VanPatten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in SLA: Terms, linguistic

features and research methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27-36.

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in

consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12 (3), 287-301.

White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M. & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2

question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.

Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension

and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13 (2),

17-45.

B014594 63

7 Appendices

7.1 Appendix A

7.1.1 Original Parental Informed Consent Form

Έρευνα για τα Αγγλικά!!!!!!!!

Το γυµνάσιο Μουζακίου επιλέχτηκε να συµµετάσχει σε έρευνα σχετικά µε την αποτελεσµατικότητα διαφορετικών µεθόδων διδασκαλίας Αγγλικών. Συγκεκριµένα, ποια µορφή κειµένου έχει το καλύτερο αποτέλεσµα. 2 τύποι κειµένου, ελαφρώς διαφορετικοί, θα συγκριθούν. Γι’ αυτό το σκοπό, θα γίνουν 2 µαθήµατα µε κείµενα εκτός του βιβλίου τον Απρίλιο καθώς και κάποιες ασκήσεις. Το µάθηµα ∆ΕΝ βαθµολογείται! Κατόπιν, µελέτη των ασκήσεων θα δείξει ποια είναι η πιο αποτελεσµατική µέθοδος.

Η έρευνα έχει εγκριθεί από το πανεπιστήµιο του Εδιµβούργου, Ηνωµένο Βασίλειο, και το γυµνάσιο Μουζακίου. Η Άννα Τσιώλα διεξάγει την έρευνα, υπό την επίβλεψη του λέκτορα Dr. Fordyce Kenneth. Για ερωτήσεις, απευθυνθείτε αρχικά στην διευθύντρια Παναγιώτα Μακρυγιάννη ή στην Άννα Τσιώλα:

Τηλέφωνο: 0044-7845547786

Email: atsiola@hotmail.com

Ανωνυµία!!

Όλα τα στοιχεία που θα προκύψουν από την έρευνα καθώς και τα αποτελέσµατα θα είναι ΑΝΩΝΥΜΑ σε κάθε περίσταση. Πουθενά δεν θα αναφερθούν ονόµατα µαθητών. Οι µόνοι που θα έχουν πρόσβαση στα στοιχεία θα είναι οι ερευνητές. Αν η έρευνα δηµοσιευτεί, ονόµατα ∆ΕΝ θα αναφερθούν, µόνο στατιστικά στοιχεία!

Θα σας ήµουν υπόχρεη αν συµπληρώσετε την υπεύθυνη δήλωση που ακολουθεί και τη δώσετε στο παιδί σας να την παραδώσει στην διευθύντρια κ. Μακρυγιάννη Παναγιώτα.

ΥΠΕΥΘΥΝΗ ∆ΗΛΩΣΗ

∆ηλώνω ότι έχω ενηµερωθεί πλήρως σχετικά µε την έρευνα, καταλαβαίνω ότι όλα τα στοιχεία θα είναι ανώνυµα και ότι το παιδί µου έχει τη δυνατότητα να αποσυρθεί από την έρευνα σε οποιαδήποτε φάση.

Συµφωνώ να συµµετάσχει το παιδί µου σε αυτήν την έρευνα (Κυκλώστε): ΝΑΙ/ΟΧΙ

Αρχικά µαθητή:

B014594 64

Όνοµα γονέα/κηδεµόνα:

Ηµεροµηνία:

Υπογραφή:

B014594 65

7.1.2 Translated version of Informed Consent Form

Research for English!!

The Secondary school of Mouzaki has been chosen to participate in research comparing the

effectiveness of different teaching methods. More specifically, about which form of text has the

best results. 2 forms of text, slightly different, will be compared. For this reason, 2 classes will take

place with texts not included in the school coursebook in April, as well as some exercises. This is

NOT assessed! After that, evaluation of the exercises will show which is the more effective method.

The research has been approved by the University of Edinburgh, UK, and the Secondary School of

Mouzaki. Anna Tsiola, under the supervision of lecturer Dr Fordyce Kenneth is conducting the

research. If you have further questions, refer first to the principal, Panagiota Makrigianni or Anna

Tsiola:

Phone number: 0044-7845547786

Email: atsiola@hotmail.com

Anonymity!!

All the data from the research and the results will be ANONYMOUS. Students’ names will never be

mentioned in any context. The researchers will be the only ones with access to the data. If the

research is published, names will NOT be mentioned, only statistical data. I would be grateful if you

could complete the form below and ask your child to return it to the principal, Mrs Makrigianni

Panagiota.

INFORMED CONSENT

I declare that I have been fully informed about the research, I am aware that all data will be made

anonymous and that my child has the potential to withdraw from the project at any time.

I agree to my child taking part in this research project (circle as appropriate) YES/NO

Student Initials:

Name of Parent/Guardian:

Date:

Signature:

B014594 66

7.2 Appendix B

7.2.1 Pre-test

(All instructions are in L1)

A)Look at the picture (give Student one picture at a time). Make a wish based on the picture. (oral)

(for girls)

(for boys)

Boyfriend

Call me….

Lots of money!!

I broke it…

B014594 67

B)Look at each picture (give student one picture at a time). Write down a wish! (written)

They speak

Spanish. I

don’t know

Spanish…

Ferrari!!!!

I didn’t study…

B014594 68

C)Look at each picture. Which sentence best describes it? Circle the appropriate sentence.

a) I wish it doesn’t rain!

b) I wish it didn’t rain!

c) I wish it isn’t rain!

d) I wish it rains!

a)If only I didn’t break the window!

b)If only I hadn’t broken the window!

c)I wish I had broken the window!

d)I wish I haven’t broken the window!

a) If only I had an ice-cream right now!

b) I wish I have an ice-cream right now!

c) If only I had had an ice-cream right now!

d) I wish I will have an ice-cream right now!

Ate big

hamburger…

B014594 69

a) If only I am more careful!

b) I wish I have been more careful!

c) If only I had been more careful!

d) I wish I was more careful!

a) I wish I were at the beach, and not in

class!

b) I wish I go to the beach very soon!

c) I wish I am at the beach right now!

d) I wish I have been to the beach

already!

a) Oh no! I wish I remembered to lock

the door!

b) Oh no! If only I had remembered to

lock the door!

c) Oh no! I wish I remember to lock the

door!

d) Oh no! I wish I have remembered to

lock the door!

D)Fill in the gap with the correct form of the word given:

1. If only I………………….(can run) really fast!

2. Yesterday I heard a strange noise and I …………………(call) the police.

3. I wish you ………………..(tidy) your room more often!

4. Mark is late for school. Now he wishes he …………….(miss) the bus.

5. After my sister ……………..(break) my laptop, she apologised and promised to buy me a new

one!

6. The Justin Bieber concert has now sold out. If only I…………..(buy) a ticket in time!

7. I .............(fly) to New York next week to visit my friend Rihanna.

8. I wish I ............(have) lots of money so that I could buy a Ferrari!

9. We wish our teacher …………………..(not give) us any homework!

B014594 70

E)Some of the sentences are correct, some have mistakes. Read them and put (v) if it’s correct and

(x) if it’s wrong. If you think it’s wrong, try to correct the mistakes!

1. I wish I can fly!

2. My laptop is very slow. I really need a new one.

3. I wish you hadn’t drunk so much yesterday.

4. Mum wishes I was more organised.

5. I had an amazing time at the concert yesterday. You shouldn’t have missed it!

6. If only the DJ plays some latin music! This rap is so boring!

7. My girlfriend thinks Formula 1 is boring!! Can you believe that?

8. Oh, look…There are only 5 people at the party…I wish there are more!

9. My boyfriend was sitting on a chair the whole time at the party. I wish he danced more!

F)Translate the sentences into English. If you don’t know some words, raise your hand and ask me!

1. (I wish I could play football like Messi)

2. (I want to travel to Paris this summer.

3. (I wish you stopped talking)

4. (Maria wants to go to Beyonce’s concert, but she can’t.)

5. (It’s very cold! I wish I had bought a warmer jacket.)

B014594 71

7.2.2 Post-test

(All instructions were in L1)

A)Look at the picture (give Student one picture at a time). Make a wish based on the picture. (oral)

(for girls)

(for boys)

B)Look at each picture (give student one picture at a time). Write down a wish! (written)

I broke it…

House with

swimming pool!

To my house!!!

To my house!!!

B014594 72

C)Look at each picture. Which sentence best describes it? Circle the appropriate sentence.

I didn’t take an

umbrella…

I don’t know

algebra..

Too much

spaghetti!!

B014594 73

e) I wish it doesn’t snow!

f) I wish it didn’t snow!

g) I wish it isn’t snow!

h) I wish it snows!

a)If only he didn’t break the plates!

b)If only he hadn’t broken the plates!

c)I wish he had broken the plates!

d)I wish he haven’t broken the plates!

a) If only I had a pizza at the moment!

b) I wish I have a pizza at the moment!

c) If only I had had a pizza at the

moment!

d) I wish I will have a pizza at the

moment!

e) If only I am more careful!

f) If only I have been more

careful!

g) If only I had been more careful!

h) If only I was more careful!

e) I wish I were at a party, and not

in class!

f) I wish I go to a party very soon!

g) I wish I am at a party right now!

h) I wish I have been to a party

already!

e) I wish I remembered to wash

my clothes!

f) If only I had remembered to

wash my clothes!

g) I wish I remember to wash my

clothes!

h) If only I have remembered to

wash my clothes!

I HAVE

NOTHING TO

WEAR!!!!

B014594 74

D)Fill in the gap with the correct form of the word given:

10. If only I………………….(can jump) very high!

11. Yesterday I ran down the stairs and I ………………… (fall).

12. You never wash the dishes! I wish you ………………..(wash) them sometimes!

13. Angela is sick. Now she wishes she …………….(wear) only a T-shirt yesterday.

14. After Tim ……………..(finish) his dinner, he said goodnight and went to bed.

15. The cinema playing Twilight is now full. If only I………….. (come) earlier to buy a ticket!

16. I .............(travel) to London next Monday to go to Justin Timberlake’s concert.

17. I wish I ............(have) lots of money so that I could travel to the moon!

18. They cannot sleep tonight. They wish their neighbors ………………….. (not make) so much

noise!

E)Some of the sentences are correct, some have mistakes. Read them and put (v) if it’s correct and

(x) if it’s wrong. If you think it’s wrong, try to correct the mistakes!

10. Mark wishes he can swim like a dolphin!

11. I feel very tired. I really need to take a break.

12. I wish you hadn’t taken so many photos yesterday because now the memory card is full.

13. Dad wishes I was a better student.

14. The film was really good. You should have come with us!

15. If only Samantha turns the music down a little! It is too loud!

16. My boyfriend thinks that Sakis Rouvas is ugly!! Can you believe that?

17. Oh, look…There is only one piece of cake left…I wish there are more!

18. My girlfriend was talking on the phone for hours and I was bored. I wish she talked less!

F)Translate the sentences into English. If you don’t know some words, raise your hand and ask me!

6. Μακάρι να μπορούσα να χορεύω όπως η Shakira! (I wish I could dance like Shakira)

7. Θέλω να αγοράσω καινούργια γυαλιά ηλίου. (I want to buy some new sunglasses)

8. Μακάρι να με άκουγες! (I wish you would listen to me)

9. Η Κατερίνα θέλει να πάει στην Αφρική, αλλά είναι πολύ ακριβά. (Catherine wants to go to

Africa, but it’s too expensive)

10. Έχει πολλή ζέστη! Μακάρι να είχα φέρει το μαγιώ μου! (It’s so hot! I wish I had brought

my swimming suit)

B014594 75

7.2.3 Delayed Post-test

(All instructions were in L1)

A)Look at the picture (give Student one picture at a time). Make a wish based on the picture. (oral)

B)Look at each picture (give student one picture at a time). Write down a wish! (written)

I broke it…

Nintendo 3DS

Grandma,

make

chocolate

cake…

B014594 76

Hammer Jeep!!

Didn’t bring

water...

Don’t know

where I am…

Ate a big sandwich…

B014594 77

C)Look at each picture. Which sentence best describes it? Circle the appropriate sentence.

i) I wish you doesn’t wear

those shoes!

j) I wish you didn’t wear

those shoes!

k) I wish you isn’t wear those

shoes!

l) I wish you wear those

shoes!

a)If only you didn’t break my

sunglasses!

b)If only you hadn’t broken my

sunglasses!

c)I wish you had broken my

sunglasses!

d)I wish you haven’t broken my

sunglasses!

a) If only I had a chocolate cake

now!

b) I wish I have a chocolate cake

now!

c) If only I had had a chocolate cake

now!

d) I wish I will have a chocolate cake

now!

i) If only he is more careful!

j) If only he has been more

careful!

k) If only he had been more

careful!

l) If only he was more careful!

i) I wish I were in Disneyland,

and not in class!

j) I wish I go to Disneyland

very soon!

k) I wish I am in Disneyland

right now!

l) I wish I have been in

Disneyland already!

B014594 78

i) I wish I remembered to

clean my car!

j) If only I had remembered to

clean my car!

k) I wish I remember to clean

my car!

l) If only I have remembered

to clean my car!

D)Fill in the gap with the correct form of the word given:

19. If only I………………….(can climb) this tall tree!

20. Yesterday I met a girl from France and we …………………(watch) Harry Potter 6 .

21. I cannot solve this problem! I wish somebody ...............(help) me!

22. Nick’s stomach hurts. Now he wishes he …………….(eat) so many chips.

23. After my brother ……………..(break) his leg, he stopped playing football.

24. Harry Potter 6 has already started. If only I…………..(arrive) earlier at the cinema!

25. I .............(go) to Dubai next summer to stay in a hotel made of gold!.

26. I don’t have any money...I wish I ............(have) lots of money so that I could play all day and

never work!

27. We wish you …………………..(not phone) me so late at night! You always wake me up.

E)Some of the sentences are correct, some have mistakes. Read them and put (v) if it’s correct and

(x) if it’s wrong. If you think it’s wrong, try to correct the mistakes!

19. I wish I can run like a cheetah!

20. I don’t have anything to eat. I really need to cook.

21. I wish you hadn’t woken me up so early this morning. I wanted to sleep more.

22. My friend wishes I was not late all the time.

23. We really enjoyed twilight yesterday. Next time you should come with us`!

24. If only mum cooks pizza and not fish tonight!

25. My girlfriend doesn’t like to watch football! Can you believe it?

26. Oh, look…There is only one lion in this zoo…I wish there are more!

27. Monika was busy yesterday and she didn’t explain the math problem to me. Today, I failed

the test. I wish she .......(help) me yesterday!

B014594 79

F)Translate the sentences into English. If you don’t know some words, raise your hand and ask

me!

11. Μακάρι να μπορούσα να τραγουδάω σαν το Χατζηγιάννη! (I wish I could sing like

Chatzigiannis)

12. Θέλω να οδηγήσω ένα Audi TT. (I want to drive an Audi TT)

13. Μακάρι να με βοηθούσες με τη Φυσική! (I wish you would help me with Physics)

14. Η Λία θέλει καινούργιο ποδήλατο. (Lia wants a new bike)

15. Βρέχει. Μακάρι να είχα φέρει ομπρέλα! (It’s raining. I wish I had brought an umbrella)

The pictures in the tests were retrieved from:

http://www.yankodesign.com/2010/04/05/nintendo-3ds-with-huge-screens/

http://free-extras.com/images/cake-1343.htm

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-grandma-baking-in-the-

kitchen-image19368377

http://www.jeevesit.co.uk/laptop-service-repair-maintenance/

http://davebuttoned.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/one-hit-wonders-of-2000s-part-28.html

http://thethingaboutbreastcancer.com/2008/12/

http://newcarspec.com/2011/04/25/hummer-h3-was-so-beautiful/

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/crazygolucky/4443033009/

http://shw.atok.fotopages.com/1319765/Lost-tourist.html

http://www.pillfreevitamins.com/coloncleanse.htm

http://www.punjabiportal.com/forum/strange-clothes-weird-fashion-t3268-340.html

http://www.123rf.com/stock-photo/disapproving.html

http://www.123rf.com/photo_1413645_a-picture-of-some-broken-glasses.html

http://depositphotos.com/1261837/stock-photo-Blinded-by-the-sun.html

http://www.recipedose.com/2012/03/recipe-moist-chocolate-cake.html

http://surfwithberserk.com/motorbike-falls

http://www.adamakistravel.com/el/trip_offer.php?trip_id=18

http://robertfinkelstein.wordpress.com/sunday-observations/dirty-car-need-wash/

http://www.hotflick.net/pictures/003FRN_David_Schwimmer_004.html

http://www.fimes.gr/2011/03/anoigoun-trapezikoi-logariasmoi-2/

http://www.stock-photography-images.com/enlarged/614-02242049/Woman-with-

cellphone/11

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6770135-man-rests-looking-at-phone-waiting-

for-a-call.php

http://goodenoughmother.com/2011/05/ask-rene-the-price-is-right/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Your-mum-shouting-your-name-you-saying-WHAT-then-

no-reply-lol/315839621548

http://www.facebook.com/pages/OK-Mum-Shouting-At-Me-Isnt-Going-To-Make-Me-Go-

Any-Faster/303490979304

B014594 80

http://www.anagnwsths.com/archives/7218

http://life-in-the-uk-test.co.uk/a-third-of-applicants-fail-british-citizenship-test/

http://depositphotos.com/1052408/stock-photo-Young-boy-eating-hamburger.html

http://depositphotos.com/1052408/stock-photo-Young-boy-eating-hamburger.html

http://vecto.rs/design/vector-of-a-stressed-cartoon-man-walking-under-an-umbrella-and-

rain-cloud-by-gnurf-98

http://chrisguillebeau.com/3x5/business-blogging-broken-windows/

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3301414_boy-thinking-with-thought-bubble.html

http://stuffpoint.com/ice-cream/image/48031/ice-cream-tree-stages--picture/

http://accidentpics.blogspot.hk/2008/05/colorado-car-accident-photos-and.html

https://www.google.gr/search?num=10&hl=el&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=13

66&bih=619&q=beach&oq=beach&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2258.3239.0.4212.5.4.0.1.1.0.48.165.4

.4.0...0.0...1ac.8b9D2xH8qHI

http://www.protectussecurity.com/how-tos/the-best-ways-to-prevent-burglary/

http://designinteriorart.com/all-posts/choose-a-modern-swimming-pool-design/

http://www.popjargononline.com/2011/06/man-shoots-12-year-old-for-ringing-his.html

http://www.athenspress.gr/2011/10/%CE%BF-%CF%83%CE%AC%CE%BA%CE%B7%CF%82-

%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B2%CE%AC%CF%82-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF-athens-press-

%C2%AB%CF%84%CE%B7-%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE-

%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%B5%CE%BD/

http://nea-news.blogspot.hk/2012/06/shakira-13.html

http://www.avenue7.com/Product/-/-broken-wine-glass-JPG/6feb04df-7590-4a1a-90b2-

af201dfd95e4

http://motoburg.com/1101-porsche-carrera-gt.html

http://www.autoevolution.com/news-image/porsche-takes-swings-at-us-car-

manufacturers-2450-1.html

http://www.google.gr/imgres?num=10&hl=el&biw=1366&bih=619&tbm=isch&tbnid=jqFnx

mG5071aYM:&imgrefurl=http://www.skill-guru.com/sat/sat-preparation-burning-a-hole-

in-parents-pockets/&imgurl=http://www.skill-guru.com/sat/wp-

content/uploads/2011/02/School-

Blackboard.jpg&w=1050&h=789&ei=S6g4UPPpAqeQiQey3IEY&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=872

&vpy=105&dur=26&hovh=195&hovw=259&tx=133&ty=86&sig=100048799814985172840

&page=2&tbnh=131&tbnw=165&start=23&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:23,i:162

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-9392933/stock-photo-girl-frustrated-with-

homework

http://www.diabeteseducatorsupdate.com.au/treatment/adverse-effects-with-20g-carb-

errors

http://www.theparentszone.com/parenting/factors-to-consider-before-leaving-children-

alone-at-home/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Heavy-snow-traps-many-people-in-Bosnia-

3015316.php

http://www.colourbox.com/image/view-of-a-waiter-carrying-plates-image-572321

B014594 81

http://www.flickr.com/photos/loplop/4794067225/

http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Supreme_pizza.jpg

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-knee-scratch-image17089686

http://bar13.co.uk/

http://homestretch-annie.blogspot.hk/2012/03/top-o-laundry-pile-to-ya.html

B014594 82

7.3 Appendix C-Rule Presentation and Instructional Tasks (Including Teacher

Guidelines)

Due to the multimodal nature of the instructional tasks and the enhancement, a link is provided where all tasks can be accessed online. Teacher “script” is also included for rules presentation as well as for introducing each tasks, in this case in square brackets.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/74885415/Dissertation%20Lesson%20Materials.zip

References for materials

Crane, D. & Kauffman, M. (1994). Friends. United States: NBC.

Oldfield, S (2003). The three wishes. United Kingdom: Eleanor Curtain Publishing.

Paisley, B. (2007). Letter to me. United States: Arista Nashville.

Superchick (2005). Wishes. United States: Inpop records.

Ware, B. (date unknown). Inspiration and chai: warmth for the soul and the body. Retrieved

from http://www.inspirationandchai.com/Regrets-of-the-Dying.html.

B014594 83

7.4 Appendix D- Scoring System and Examples

First, I report an example of student answers and then give the scores in the scoring tables.

EXAMPLE

TASK A

1)_I wish I had a big swimming pool in my house

2)_ (no response)

3)_ _ I wish I hadn’t broken the glass

TASK B

1)I wish I had a Porsche.

2)I wish I had take an umbrella

3)I wish I had studied algebra.

4)I wish I hadn’t eat too much spaghetti.

TASK C

1)b v

2)b v

3)a v

4) d x

5)b x

6)c x

TASK D

1)could jump v

2)washed v

3)had wear v (should be hadn’t worn)

4)will come x

5)had v

6)don’t make x

B014594 84

TASK E

1)x- COULD swim (correct)

2) v (correct)

3) v (correct)

4) x TURN (should be turned)

5) v (should correct “are” to “were”)

6) x (should correct to “had talked)

TASK F

1)I wish I was dance like Shakira.

2) I wish you had listened me

3) It is too warm. I wish I had took my swimming suis.

CODING TABLES

TASK A- ORAL (each column coded as 0/1)

Sentences Use of

“wish”/”if

only”

Use of past

simple/past

perfect

Create a

“wish”

meaning,

disregarding

the

grammaticality

of the

utterance

Total

correctness

Total

A 1 1 1 1 4

B 0 0 0 0 0

C 1 1 1 1 4

Totals 2 2 2 2 8

B014594 85

TASK B- WRITTEN (each column coded as 0/1)

Sentences Use of

“wish”/”if

only”

Use of past

simple/past

perfect

Create a “wish”

meaning,

disregarding the

grammaticality of

the utterance

Total

correctness

Total

A 1 1 1 1 4

B 1 1 1 1 4

C 1 1 1 1 4

D 1 1 1 1 4

Totals 4 4 4 4 16

TASK C (MCQ- each sentence 0/2)

Sentences Circled the correct sentence

A 2

B 2

C 2

D 0

E 0

F 0

Total 6

TASK D (Fill-in)

Sentence Use of grammatical

structure (0/1)

Indication of correct

meaning referring to

past or present (0/1)

Totals

A 1 1 2

B 1 1 2

C 1 0 1

D 0 0 0

E 1 1 2

F 0 1 1

Totals 4 5 8

B014594 86

TASK E (GJT)

Sentence Correct

judgement (0/1)

Correct

correction (o/1)*

Total Irrelevant

corrections (0/1)

A 1 1 2 0

B 1 - 1 0

C 1 - 1 0

D 0 0 0 0

E 0 0 0 0

F 0 0 0 0

Total 3 1 4 0

*This second point applies only to the grammatically incorrect sentences A, D, E, F, same for all test

versions.

TASK F-Translation

Sentence Use of

“wish/if

only” (0/1)

Use of

correct

tense (0/1)

Attempt to

meaning correct

(e.g.past/present)

disregarding

grammaticality

(0/1)

Total

correctness

Totals

A 1 0 1 0 2

B 1 1 1 1 4

C 1 1 1 1 4

Total 3 2 3 2 10

B014594 87

DECLARATION OF OWN WORK

This sheet must be filled in (each box ticked to show that the condition has been met), signed and dated, and included with all assessments – work will not be marked unless this

is done.

DISSERTATION MATRICULATION NUMBER: __s1150095____________________ COURSE/PROGRAMME: MSc TESOL TITLE OF WORK: __The effects of visual input enhancement on implicit and explicit knowledge: a quasi-experimental study_________ I confirm that all this work is my own except where indicated, and that I have: Clearly referenced/listed all sources as appropriate; x Referenced and put in inverted commas all quoted text of more x than three words (from books, web, etc); Given the sources of all pictures, data, etc., that are not my x own; Not made any use of the essay(s) of any other student(s) either past or present; x Not sought or used the help of any external professional agencies for the work; x Acknowledged in appropriate places any help that I have received from others (e.g., fellow students, technicians, statisticians, external sources), and; x Complies with any other plagiarism criteria specified in the Course Handbook. x I UNDERSTAND THAT ANY FALSE CLAIM FOR THIS WORK WILL BE PENALISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS. Signature: __Anna Tsiola________ Date: 25 / 08 /2012

B014594 88

Please note: If you need further guidance on plagiarism, you can:

1. Consult your course book. 2. Speak to your course organiser or supervisor. 3. Check out http://www.aaps.ed.ac.uk/regulations/Plagiarism/Intro.htm