Similar to CF, the input enhancement (IE) was defined as “a deliberate attempt to
make specific features of L2 input more salient in order to draw learners’ attention to
these features” (Smith 1991, p. 118). The first half of this definition concerns input
saliency, which is usually achieved by typographical modification, when input is
manifested in texts. The latter half of the definition is about arousal of learners’
attention, to facilitate noticing and processing. However, it was indicated that...
…the bulk of the [input enhancement] research…focuses mainly on the effect of instructional modification as measured by the relationship between the input learners receive and their subsequent linguistic performance. Lacking in this line of research is the investigation of the learners’ processing of input. (Jourdenais, Stauffer, Boyson, Doughty, 1995)
In short, the efficacy of IE in arousing noticing and processing is seldom
examined.
Lack of involvement in probing noticing and processing may not lead to
satisfying results in empirical studies. White’s (1998) study yielded such insight. She
sought to find out whether typographically enhanced input and extensive reading and
listening would make learners progress further in the acquisition of third person
singular pronouns and possessive determiners. Three groups were formed. Group E+
(N=27) received a typographically enhanced input flood in addition to extensive
flood. Group U (N=29) received a typographically unenhanced input flood. The result
did not support the hypotheses of this study.
In White’s discussion on the result, (the between-group differences were reduced
and thus no significant statistical evidence was generated to support her hypothesis) a
few possible reasons were given. The first is about the salience created by the
multiple-choice test given to all the three groups that contrasted possessive
determiners (PDs) of his and her. The test given was supposedly a source of input
which aroused learners’ attention across three groups. The second is about the
similarity between enhanced input and unenhanced input. Due to the similarity
between English (L1) and French (L2) and the fact that learners were not provided
with information about PD agreement, “interlingual contrast” did not enter the
learners’ awareness because “none of the treatments focused the learners’ attention”
(White, 1998).
White suggested that more explicit pedagogical technique such as brief rule
explanation could be applied at the beginning of the input enhancement period or part
of the way through it to help learners structure the input.
The findings suggest that, although drawing the learners’ attention to a linguistic
feature may be sufficient to speed up acquisition of that feature, implicit FonF
instruction (such as IE) may not be adequate in cases involving L1-L2 contrast. For
cases that involve such contrasts, therefore,
…Learners may need somewhat more explicit information about the L1-L2 contrasts in order to progress to more advanced developmental stages. The ways in which this information can be combined with … increased salience are in need of further investigation.” (p. 106)
In short, learner noticing of the L1-L2 contrast and subsequent processing should
not be overlooked.
Other IE studies that do consider learner processing strategies when designing
input in input manipulation have observed positive effect. The Jourdenais et al.’ study
in 1995 is a case in point. The aim of the study was to find out whether IE would
promote learner noticing of the target forms and subsequently affect production of
writing. Fourteen native speakers of English were involved in this study. Learners
were required to read a script (enhanced and unenhanced for experimental group and
comparison group). Then they were asked to compose and meanwhile they had to
verbalize what they were thinking simultaneously. The whole procedure was taped
and recorded.
The finding supported the hypothesis. The results suggested that the input
modification created a difference between the two groups. The two groups differed
significantly in their percentage of explicit mentions of preterit and imperfect verbs in
the enhancement participants’ protocol. The analysis of the written production also
past tense. The enhancement group “simply provided more target forms in obligatory
contexts in their written production” (Jourdenais et al. 1995).
Contrary to the previous finding, Park (2004) did not reach positive result. Park
assigned handouts of model passage for learners in both control and experimental
groups to read before they wrote. The contents of the passages in both groups were
identical. The difference was that, in the handout for experimental group the target
structure was printed in boldface. The typographical saliency is where the input
enhancement was manipulated.
The result shows that increased perceptual saliency does not necessarily lead to
learner noticing of the form(s). Noticing is largely dependent on internal, cognitive
factors, such as learner readiness, L1 knowledge and L2 learning experience. Also,
there is the attentional capacity to consider. Learners tend to process input for
meaning before they process it for form. In addition, due to the fact that attentional
capacity is limited, the target structure should be minimally enhanced for facilitation
of learner processing. Park (2004) concludes that…
FonF studies should pay special attention to the learner’s limited attentional capacity with regard to the nature of the target linguistic form as well as the FonF technique employed. (p. 20)
That is to say, taking limited attentional capacity into consideration, the target
structure should be minimal and learner processing cannot be overlooked. This latter
point leads us to one proactive FonF technique, processing instruction.