The role of conscious and unconscious processes in second language learning is
one of the most controversial issues often brought up by SLA researchers (Schmidt,
1990). Conscious processes emphasize rule comprehension, and unconscious
processes emphasize natural uptake through meaningful language use for
communication. Conscious and unconscious processes are “a series of a wide
pendulum swinging over the past century” (Schmidt, 1995).
Schmidt identified a few dimensions of consciousness with slight differences in
1990 and 1994. In the latter version, four levels of consciousness were presented:
consciousness as intention, consciousness as attention, consciousness as awareness
and consciousness as control (Schmidt, 1994b). Based on Schmidt, Al-Hejin (2004)
summarizes each construct:
…intention, …refers to a deliberateness on the part of the learner to attend to the stimulus. Intention is often associated with intentional versus incidental learning. … attention, …basically refers to the detection of a stimulus. … awareness,…refers to the learner’s knowledge or subjective experience that he/she is detecting a stimulus, …often associated with explicit versus implicit learning. …control, …refers to the extent to which the language learners output is controlled, requiring considerable mental processing effort, or spontaneous, requiring little mental processing effort. (p. 2)
Among the detailed levels within each category, attention and awareness probably
speak to the current interest, since they influence how much cognitive resource is
be transformed into intake.
Awareness is further divided into three crucial levels: awareness as perception,
awareness as noticing, and awareness as understanding (Schmidt, 1990). Schmidt
(1990) proposed that “all perception implies mental organization and the ability to
create internal representations of external events” (p. 132). Perception usually occurs
first. Generally one can perceive surrounding stimuli and is not necessarily conscious
of them. Noticing, on the other hand, is featured with subjective experience, and thus
is private, subject to certain conditions. Understanding refers to a higher mental
processing of stimuli, involving analysis, comparison, reflection, comprehension, and
insight gained, which are commonly thought of as thinking, embracing problem
solving capability (Schmidt, 1990). When reading, for instance, aside from the content
being read, there might be the radio, the hustle and bustle from outside the window,
and so on. One can decide to (1) simply perceive the buzzing in the environment but
without further processing (awareness as perception), or (2) to (briefly) attend to the
buzzing or the input information (awareness as noticing); or (3) to attend to the input
information and analyze it drawing on existing/prior knowledge (awareness as
understanding).
Among the three levels of awareness, awareness at the level of noticing and
awareness at the level of understanding are of great significance to one’s linguistic
development, helping learners transform input into intake. Schmidt proposed that
“intake is that part of the input that the learner notices,” and “noticing is the necessary
and sufficient condition for converting input into intake” (Schmidt, 1990). Thus,
noticing serves as a middle phase between the input, “what is available for going in,”
and the intake, “what goes in” (Corder, 1967:165). Input refers to stimuli such as what
has been discussed, CF and enhanced texts. Intake, on the other hand, refers to the
actual content/information registered. With the constraints inherent in enhancement
technique that generates different degrees of noticing at work, what is presented to the
learner (input) may or may not equal what is ultimately registered (intake).
The imbalance between the enhanced input and the actual intake encircles a site
for the role of attention. Attention to information pending for processing involves
mental energy that is compared as selection and capacity (Robinson, 1995). In a
selection model, “filter theories of attention were based on pipeline models of
information processing, in which information is conveyed in a fixed serial order from
one storage structure to the next.” Stimulus is either selected and attended, or dropped
and ignored. In a capacity model, mental resource is viewed as “spotlight, with a
variable focus, which can be narrowed and intensified, or broadened and dissipated.”
Stimulus is either at the brightest center and focally attended, or in the peripheral
shadow and partially perceived. Whether selection or capacity, attention is not
limitless.
Drawing on the capacity model, Kahneman (1973) proposed that mental resource
is limited and confined to one “pool.” Incoming stimuli will be allocated with limited
cognitive resources from one pool of cognitive resources that varies as a function of
the participant’s state of arousal (cited in Robinson, 1995, p. 290). Though attention
pool is limited, divided attention does not necessarily lead to decrements in
performance, given sufficient arousal and given that the demands of the tasks
performed concurrently are not excessive.
Based on this concept of “pool,” Wickens (1980, 1984, 1989) expanded the
attentional resource allocation into multiple pools, rather than single one. These pools
occupy different points on three intersecting dimensions of resource systems: (a) the
dimension representing perceptual/cognitive activities versus response processes; (b)
the dimension representing processing codes required by analog/spatial activities
versus verbal linguistic activities; and (c) the dimension representing processing
modalities: auditory versus visual perception and vocal versus manual response. He
indicated that attentional demands of tasks and the corresponding difficulty will be
magnified when tasks draw on the same pool of resources. Consequently,
Wicken’s model also implies that noticing the form of the language input would be more likely in such labeled object assembly, or one-way picture description tasks than in tasks drawing simultaneously on the visual verbal encoding resource pool, such as the L2 task described in Doughty (1991). The latter required learners to read for
meaning, while simultaneously noticing the form of input made salient through highlighting (both drawing on the verbal visual encoding resource pool). Such distinctions between the attentional demands of tasks, made possible by Wicken’s model, are rarely examined by second language researchers, despite the important relationship between attention, resource allocation, noticing, and intake (Robinson, 1995).
In other words, “tasks drawing simultaneously on the visual verbal encoding
resource pool”, such as the aforementioned FonF techniques, CF and IE, which are
implemented in written context, are less likely to arouse learner noticing of the form
than tasks drawing on different pools. The efficacy of CF and IE would be
undermined; since only verbal visual encoding resource pool is drawn upon, the
attention load will be heavy. As Bandar Al-Hejin (2004) observed, it is more difficult
to perform two tasks if both require controlled processing (high attention). This adds
to further limitations of IE and CF. Due to the processing constraints, “forms may be
noticed perceptually, but not linguistically” (Leeman, Arteagoitia, Fridman, &
Doughty, 1995, p. 219). As Han et al. (2008) noted, “Enhanced forms may attract
attention but may fall short of further processing” (p. 602). VanPatten (2002) also
observed, “a learner could notice a form but not process it.” That is to say, enhanced
forms may also fall short of arousal of awareness at noticing level, inducing learners
to process the target form at the perceptual level, but not at the linguistic level. In the
worst scenario, learners may not be even able to discern the intended content from the
text written in target language, let alone linguistic information. In short, input cannot
be transformed into intake without noticing (Schmidt, 1990), and subsequent
processing can only be activated after input is transformed into intake. PI, on the other
hand, which involves oral/written input as evidenced in the referential and affective
structured activities, can avoid such problem, providing learners with input from
different modalities, thereby reducing cognitive processing load.
With the aforementioned review in mind, these three techniques have pedagogical
values in writing training, in that writing requires formal accuracy. With language use
at the center of overriding focus in class, occasional and timely shift of attention to
form for the purpose of increasing learners’ competence in accurate use of form may
serve as a starting point when considering alternative ways to error treatment.
A rough comparison among the three techniques will be necessary before forming
the research questions. The issues addressed in CF and IE are largely tackled with
caution in PI. For directness issue (see page 8), PI applies explicit instruction in
advance, and oral plus written activities afterwards. For focused target structure, PI
emphasizes the importance of “one thing at a time,” which caters to people’s universal
processing predilection (i.e., processing form before meaning; processing meaning
after meaning is clarified). Prior knowledge is activated from the beginning and
overall comprehension has to be kept in mind and ensured throughout the instruction.
The explicit reactivation of prior knowledge, demonstration of habitual incorrect
processing strategy, and subsequent structured activities facilitate considerable learner
noticing, and more importantly, processing. Last but not least, due to PI’s instructional
nature: oral lesson, preaching, demonstration, structured activities, learners’ different
attentional pools are activated. What will be lessened is the processing load on
decoding language and getting the information encoded. Both moves are from
sight-reading (single attentional pool) as in IE and CF, and thus processing load in
reactive FonF is much heavier.
To examine whether there will be alternatives to CF that achieve equal or better
efficacy in writing, therefore, the research interest lies in the comparison of different
FonF techniques in terms of efficacy, and the possible insight of the significant roles
that noticing and processing play in dealing with writing instruction. The research
questions are thus as follows:
1. Do the techniques commonly used in the FonF framework (i.e., CF, IE & PI)
serve as effective consciousness-raising activities in directing high-school
students’ attention to the English past tense in an immediate writing practice?
2. If so, is there any significant difference among the three FonF techniques (if
entirely so), or between the FonF techniques at focus (if partially so)?
3. Can the observed effects sustain over time?
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
There are seven sections in this chapter: (1) target structure, (2) setting and
participants, (3) design and stimuli, (4) procedures and instruments, (5)
operationalizations and (6) correction guidelines. The target structure will include the
chosen form, and the rationale behind the choice. The setting will present the teaching
environment where this study took place. A brief description will be given on the
information of the high school, the educational policy regulating English instruction,
and general background information about the learners. The participants are the
learners who received the intervention from this study. The estimated number of the
learners, the number of intact classes to which learners belong, proficiency
background, grouping strategy, and relevant information about the learners will be
provided in this section. The design of the study will present the sequence of steps
which were taken. Procedures and instruments will specify the overall scaffold of the
study, and detailed depiction based on the design. Operationalizations will include the
grouping, and exact conduction of the treatments relevant to each group. Finally, the
correction guidelines are the referential criterion according to which the assessment
and evaluation of the learners’ performance will be carried out.