THE RELATIVE EFFECTS OF ENHANCED AND NON-ENHANCED STRUCTURED INPUT ON L2 ACQUISITION OF SPANISH PAST TENSE

by

Silvia M. Peart, B.A, M.A., M.A.

A Dissertation

In

SPANISH

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Spanish

Approved

Andrew P. Farley

Idoia Elola

Greta Gorsuch

Janet Perez

Susan Stein

Fred Hartmeister Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2008

Copyright 2008, Silvia M. Peart Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank first my mentor, advisor and friend, Dr. Andrew Farley. His guidance helped me learn not only the main topics of second language acquisition, but also led me to develop as a professional. It has been a pleasure to work with him these last three years. I thank him for his support this last year, his mentoring and patience. I want also to express my gratitude to Dr. Idoia Elola whose support also has been a key to my success as a doctoral student. Her encouragement and assistance during this last year has been the fuel that kept me in motion. I would like to thank Dr. Susan Stein and Dr.

Beard for their friendship and their encouraging support in all my projects as a student.

Finally, I would like to thank my committee for their invaluable feedback.

I am also grateful to the friends I made during my career at Texas Tech

University. It was also their support that encouragement that kept me on track all these years. I would like to thank you René, Hilda and Janie, for your friendship, your companionship, and your laughter. It has been a pleasure to work and to study with you. I want also thank my dearest friends Marina and Tachy, from Córdoba. It was their support and encouragement that made me apply to Texas Tech.

I want to express my gratitude to my family, Fernando and Flor. Fernando, you have always been the love of my life. Thank you for all your support in every project I worked. Thank you for holding my hand in the good and in the bad times. Flor, thank you for your understanding, for giving me all those hours from your time to work on my projects, especially in this last one: my dissertation. My parents also deserve recognition for encouraging me to pursue my goals, and for giving me the best gift in life, a good education.

ii Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii

ABSTRACT...... vii

LIST OF TABLES...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Introduction...... 1

Input: Definition...... 1

Instruction Can Make a Difference...... 3

Input-based Approaches...... 4

Output-based Approaches...... 9

Types of Instruction ...... 12

Input Enhancement ...... 12

Textual Enhancement...... 15

Structured Input ...... 17

Strategies Learners Use to Process Input...... 19

Structured Input Activities...... 21

Textually Enhanced Structured Input ...... 22

The Present Study ...... 24

CHAPTER 2 – MOTIVATIONS FOR THE PRESENT STUDY ...... 25

Introduction...... 25

Research on Structured Input...... 25

iii Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Structured Input: Background...... 25

Research and Background on Attention and Noticing...... 33

Input Enhancement and Noticing...... 36

Research on Textual Enhancement...... 37

Textual Enhancement: Background...... 37

A Pilot Study...... 44

Research Questions for the French Experiment...... 45

Research Questions for the Spanish Experiment ...... 45

Hypothesis for the French Experiment ...... 46

Hypothesis for the Spanish Experiment ...... 47

Subjects...... 48

Materials ...... 49

Assessments ...... 50

Procedures...... 51

Scoring ...... 52

Results...... 52

Discussion...... 53

Conclusions...... 56

Summary of the Overall Results of Data from the Pilot Study...... 60

Revisions Made Since the Pilot Study...... 61

Design of the Present Study...... 63

Research Questions...... 63

Hypothesis...... 64

iv Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY ...... 66

Introduction...... 66

Research Design...... 66

Subjects...... 68

Materials ...... 70

Instructional Materials ...... 70

Structured Input Packet...... 73

Textually Enhanced Structured Input Packet...... 78

Assessment...... 81

Interpretation Task...... 82

Production Task ...... 84

Procedure ...... 86

Scoring ...... 90

Analysis...... 90

CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS...... 94

Introduction...... 94

Descriptive Statistics of All Data...... 94

Analysis of Interpretation Data...... 95

Summary of Interpretation Data ...... 97

Analysis of the Production Data ...... 98

Summary of Production Data...... 100

Analysis of the Present Tense Data ...... 101

Summary of Analysis of Present Tense...... 105

v Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION...... 106

Introduction...... 106

Discussion...... 106

Implications...... 112

Limitations and Further Research...... 115

Conclusions...... 117

REFERENCES ...... 120

APPENDIX A ...... 131

Instructional Materials: Structured Input...... 131

APPENDIX B ...... 146

Instructional Materials: Textually Enhanced Structured Input...... 146

APPENDIX C ...... 161

Assessment Materials...... 161

APPENDIX D ...... 171

Background Survey...... 171

APPENDIX E ...... 173

Guidelines for Instructors ...... 173

APPENDIX F ...... 184

Questionnaire for Instructors ...... 184

APPENDIX G ...... 186

Handout...... 186

vi Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

ABSTRACT

Research on how textual enhancement (TE) affects classroom-based L2 acquisition of grammatical morphemes has shown mixed results. When enhanced conditions were compared with un-enhanced conditions, some studies demonstrated significant effects for textual enhancement, some reported no effect or negative effects and others reported only partial effects for textual enhancement. In contrast, research on how structured input (SI) impacts L2 acquisition of grammatical morphemes has shown consistently beneficial effects. In all studies comparing structured input with other instructional types, SI has brought more beneficial effects or equally beneficial effects.

Combining TE and SI, the present study introduces textually enhanced structured input (TESI) as a treatment. The main purpose of this study is to present and examine the differential effects of two types of input-based language instruction on how learners interpret and produce the third-person singular form of the Spanish preterit. This experiment involved 62 participants from first-year Spanish.

Sentence-level interpretation and production tests were implemented to assess performance before, immediately following, and fourteen days after treatment. Secondly, the experiment examines whether or not the beneficial affects of structured input are heightened if the features of TE are combined with SI. The results reveal that both instruction types brought about improved performance on the assessment tasks, and the performance of both treatment groups was statistically similar. These results differ from previous research that has compared TE with other types of instruction, where TE at sentence-level task showed better results compared with other types of instruction.

vii Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

(Farley, Peart, & Enns, 2008; Wong, 2002). Although TESI did not prove to be more beneficial than the un-enhanced treatment in the present study, both types of instruction resulted in improvement over time without explicit grammatical information.

viii Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Descriptive statistics for the French and the Spanish data...... 57

Table 2.2 ANOVA results for the French data ...... 58

Table 2.3 ANOVA results for the Spanish data...... 59

Table 3.1 Summary Timeline of the Research...... 67

Table 3.2 Frequency of verbs used in TESI and SI activities...... 71

Table 3.3 Distribution of referential and affective activities ...... 72

Table 3.4 Assessment test sequencing for the TESI and SI treatment groups...... 82

Table 3.5 Frequency of verbs used in interpretation tasks...... 83

Table 3.6 Frequency of verbs used in production tasks...... 86

Table 3.7 Distribution of instructors across treatment groups...... 87

Table 4.1 Number of subjects, means and standard deviation for the interpretation data 94

Table 4.2 Number of subjects, means and standard deviation for the production data .... 94

Table 4.3 Summary table for ANOVA using interpretation data ...... 96

Table 4.4 Summary table for ANOVA using production data ...... 99

Table 4.5 Number of subjects, means and standard deviation for the present tense data103

Table 4.6 Summary table for ANOVA using present tense data...... 104

ix Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Interaction plot for French data ...... 59

Figure 2.2 Interaction plot for Spanish data...... 60

Figure 4.1 Interaction Plot for Interpretation data ...... 97

Figure 4.2 Interaction Plot for Production data ...... 100

Figure 4.3 Interaction Plot for Present Tense data...... 105

x Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Sharwood Smith (1981, 1991) recast the notion of formal grammar instruction by

introducing the concept of input enhancement. Among others, Rutherford & Sharwood

Smith (1985) explored techniques involving enhancement that make certain features in the target language more salient. These techniques draw the learners’ attention to certain grammatical aspects without resorting to lengthy grammatical explanations. According to

Sharwood Smith, input enhancement function as a pedagogical intervention used to make specific features of L2 input more salient in order to draw learners’ attention to these features. The present study investigates the effects of two input-based focus-on-form techniques: structured input and textually enhanced structured input and their relative effects on classroom L2 acquisition of the Spanish preterit.

This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section provides a brief discussion of the role of input in second language acquisition. The second section defines the role of instruction in second language acquisition and language teaching. The third section gives an account of the types of instruction that appear to be more beneficial. The fourth section introduces textually enhanced structured input as a treatment for this experiment. The final section, provides an outline of the dissertation.

Input: Definition

In the context of language acquisition, input refers to samples of language that learners are exposed to in a communicative context or setting. According to VanPatten

1 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

(2003), input is the language that a learner hears (or reads) that has some kind of communicative intent. There is a message to be communicated in the utterance so that the receiver of the message has a reason for focusing on it. Researchers, call this type of meaningful input primary linguistic data (Schwartz, 1993); Susan Gass (1997) points out that:

The concept of input is perhaps the single most important concept of second language acquisition. It is trivial to point out that no individual can learn a second language without input of some sort. In fact, all models of second language acquisition avail themselves of input in trying to explain how learners create second language grammar. (p.1)

Most researchers would not dispute that input is necessary for language acquisition to take place. Krashen (1982) argued that input was the most important factor in the second language acquisition field. Another important characteristic of input for second language acquisition is that it must be comprehensible. If input involves the communication of a message, the learner must be able to make sense of the message. If it is incomprehensible, it is useless to learners. In order for input to be processed and then to create a developing system, the input must be comprehensible (see Long, 1983; Pica, Young, & Doughty,

1987; among others).

Ellis (1994) presented and differentiated two contrasting types of input; interactional and non-interactional. According to him, interactional input; is input received in a communicative exchange in the context of an interaction involving the learner and at least one other person. Non-interactional input, on the other hand, takes place in the context of non-reciprocal discourse. In the latter case, learners are not interacting with each other. However, both interactional and non-interactional language can provide rich sources of input for language learners. In the case of interactional input,

2 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

learners are able to negotiate meaning; this also enables them to give more input to each

other. According to Gass (1997), this makes the input more comprehensible and

accessible for acquisition. This is one of the most important reasons why interaction is

also considered to be important for second language acquisition.

In the present study, the concept of input refers to linguistic data that contains

utterances used in a communicative context. The most recent research concludes that the

quantity and the quality of input are important factors influencing whether second

language acquisition occurs or not.

Instruction can make a difference

Although sometimes instruction appears to have no effect, the research data on

structured input, textual enhancement and other similar focus-on-form instruction types

does demonstrate an impact (see VanPatten, 1996, 2003; Long, 1996; VanPatten &

Wong, 2004; Wong, 2005; among others). On the other hand, some research indicates

little or no effect for instruction with regard to altering the route of L2 acquisition (see for

example Ellis, 1989), and some research definitely points towards a positive effect for instruction with regard to rate (see for example Spada & Lightbown, 1999). This study

revealed that instruction does not alter the natural route of acquisition, and therefore it

may not be necessary that individual learners stay at a specific developmental stage. This

is encouraging to teachers who do not need to determine precisely the developmental

stage of the learner as a basis for instruction. In light of these studies, this section will assume that instruction can and does make a difference.

3 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Input-based approaches

Most research from the last thirty years indicates that input is crucial for language acquisition to occur. However, even when learners focus on input, they may not always make the correct form-meaning connections (see VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993;

VanPatten & Wong, 2004; Wong, 2005; Farley, 2005; among others). While input is a necessary ingredient for second language acquisition, mere exposure to input may not be enough; it is in this context that instruction can make a difference.

The research evidence for the existence of acquisition orders and developmental stages suggests that instruction cannot alter the route of acquisition: learners acquire certain grammatical features in certain specific and predictable orders, regardless of the order in which they were formally taught in the classroom. After years of research in this area, most researchers agree that formal instruction cannot change the order in which certain grammatical features are acquired (see for example, Ellis, 1989, 1994; Larsen-

Freeman & Long, 1991; Lightbown, 1983; Long, 1988; among others). However, while instruction does not appear to affect the order of acquisition, there is evidence indicating that it does affect the rate of acquisition. Instructional intervention may speed the process of acquisition of certain features of an L2. In general, research comparing classroom learning with naturalistic learning suggests that learners who have some kind of formal instruction learn certain features more quickly; instruction seems to help learners more quickly down the path toward native-like competence. In this vein of research, Van

Patten and Cadierno (1993) concluded in the study where they examined the Spanish object pronouns that: “instruction is apparently more beneficial when it is directed at how

4 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

learners perceive and process input rather than when instruction is focused on practice via

output,” (p. 54).

This occurs because classroom learners are usually exposed to richer and more

complex input than those in a naturalistic environment. As Lee and VanPatten (2003)

point out, the input in planned and organized discourse is usually richer and contains a larger range of grammatical structures, more complex syntax and broader vocabulary.

Classroom settings provide instructors with the opportunity to deliver richer input to learners. Formal instruction also may heighten a learner’s awareness of aspects in the input that they might otherwise miss or get wrong. Formal instruction makes some grammatical features in the input more salient so learners are more prone to notice and subsequently process them more quickly.

The research on second language acquisition indicates that instructional intervention can positively affect the acquisition of a target language, but there is still much debate about what types of instruction are most beneficial. An historical overview of the role of instruction in the second half of the twentieth century reveals a great deal of change which brought new definitions of what it meant to teach and to practice a language in the “real world.” In order to function in the “real world,” learners needed to develop functional skills, and be able to use the target language to communicate.

Second language researchers such as Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) and Gass and Selinker (2001) categorically agree that input is crucial for second language acquisition to occur. One of Krashen’s (1982) principal contributions was highlighting the importance of input during the process of second language acquisition. His Monitor

Model he drew attention to the importance of input in all its forms by emphasizing the

5 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

form and function of varieties of comprehensible input, and thus seeking to enhance

learner comprehension via simplification (Hatch, 1983; Wong Filmore, 1985; Wing,

1987; Frey, 1988). Furthermore, a review of important research from the 1980s to the

present reveals how considerably Krashen’s ideas have influenced the field of instructed

second language acquisition.

Krashen’s Monitor Model has won great popularity, especially among teaching

practitioners. Krashen and Terrell (1983) fused the Monitor Model and the Natural

Approach: as implied by its name, this approach holds that the L2 student “naturally”

acquires the target language through sufficient exposure to language input over time,

provided that input is both comprehensible and at an appropriately challenging level.

Comprehensible input must be slightly more advanced than the current level of the learner and must be available to the learner in a low-anxiety environment or under conditions of a low affective filter. Perhaps the most distinguished feature of the Natural

Approach is its emphasis on the provision of comprehensible input in a positive environment. Terrell, et al. (1994) claimed that “the students’ anxiety levels will be additionally lower, and their comprehension of spoken Spanish will develop faster” (84).

Terrell (1991) noted that the major implication of Krashen’s model is that the learners’ output is supposedly based directly on the input they process and store. This is a notion that directly contradicts assertions regarding output made by researchers and theorists such as Swain (1985, 1995, 1998), Gass and Selinker (2001), and others.

As shown above, the eighties were a pivotal point for the field of second language acquisition; as with the Monitor Model and the Natural Approach, the Communicative

Language Teaching approach was initiated during this time. This approach is widely used

6 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 in the United States, Canada, Europe, and elsewhere. Communicative Language

Teaching’s main goal is to make communicative competence the center of instruction.

This approach aims at helping instructors articulate procedures for teaching how to use the language in the classroom, and at the same time, it takes into consideration the interdependence of language and communication (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Many factors motivated the development of the Communicative Language Teaching approach, including the rising need to learn languages for communicative purposes and the realization that explicit knowledge of grammar rules did not produce learners who could effectively use the L2. Drawing from Canale and Swain (1980), Rivers (1987), Savignon

(1998), VanPatten (2002) and others, Wong (2005) describes Communicative Language

Teaching thusly:

1. Meaning should always be in focus, communicative Language Teaching focuses primarily on negotiation of meaning, or the exchange with others in the target language.

2. The classroom should be learner-centered: the needs of the learners should inform the curriculum. Also, knowledge about how learners acquire the target language should inform the methodology and the teaching materials used in the classroom.

3. Communication is not only oral but written and gestural as well: within this approach, teachers use a broad set of materials, such as audio, visual, among others, as aids in the development the learners’ skills.

4. Samples of authentic material should be used in the classroom. For conversational as well as written activities.

7 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

5. Communicative events in class should be purposeful, i.e. tasks should foster the learning of new information that serves the learners’ practical and/or professional needs.

(Adapted from Wong, 2005)

Input in the target language is a key component for Communicative Language

Teaching; with oral and written proficiency developing through the presentation of different aspects of the target language. With this approach, once more, input is considered the driving force for second language acquisition.

In the late eighties and early nineties, researchers began asking if attention to form in the input was necessary for second language acquisition. Schmidt (1990, 1994) held that noticing was a prerequisite for L2 acquisition and usage. He accepted the existence of some incidental learning, but argued that attention to form in the input was indispensable for the acquisition of certain grammatical features. The process of noticing needs to occur first in order for the input to be filtered for further processing. This hypothesis operates under the assumption that input is essential for second language acquisition, and it is important to note that whether or not noticing is a requisite for the

L2 to be processed and acquired, the fact remains that input carries the grammatical features to be processed by the learner.

The Competition Model also highlights the importance of input in the acquisition process. Bates and MacWhinney (1982, 1989), who created the bases for the Competition model, state that the acquisition process is driven by cues in the input. They presented and distinguished two levels of structure: one where meaning is expressed and another more formal level, where forms appear. According to the Competition Model, acquisition

8 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

occurs when one level interconnects with the other, meaning that acquisition occurs when

meaning is mapped to form. According to this model, processing of the L2 occurs while

competition takes place among different cues in the input.

This brief overview of different perspectives on input and its importance in

second language acquisition reveals how theorists and researchers agree that input is

fundamental. Even within different theoretical approaches, theorists and researchers

agree on the idea that learners require input in order to acquire another language.

Output-based approaches

In the late 1980s, scholars and theorists began to turn their attention toward output

in second language acquisition research. Chaudron (1998) suggested that there were

limited findings regarding the influence of production on learning outcomes, also noting that this fact might be a result of the failure of researchers to account for the quality of

learner output (as opposed to the impact of quantity), in addition to some problems with

research design.

Swain (1985, 1993, 1995, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1995) developed a formalized

version of the Output Hypothesis which was meant to be an addition, rather than an

alternative, to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. In proposing her Output Hypothesis, Swain agreed that input is an essential element in successful second language acquisition, but she went on to make a compelling case for the role of comprehensible output as another important causal variable. She found that although comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition to occur, it is not sufficient to ensure that the outcome will be native-like performance. Her observations led her to suggest that learners need to engage in the

9 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 production of comprehensible output, in addition to exposure to comprehensible input, in order to attain native levels of accuracy. While she stressed the “necessity of providing learners with considerable in-class opportunities for speaking and writing” (Swain, 1993, p. 160), she also noted, that just speaking and writing are not enough. Learners must be pushed to make use of their resources, and they need to employ linguistic abilities fully in order to achieve appropriateness and accuracy in the targeted language.

Grove (1999) explored in detail Swain’s notion of “pushed output”. Contrary to the principles of the Natural Approach, an output-centered approach to teaching emphasizes the importance of building into instruction from the start appropriate and meaningful opportunities for production. With a focus on feedback, this approach represents a contextualized focus-on-form. Learners, have increased output demands, placed upon them in the context of their communicative interactions, and are thus required to notice the formal properties of the language they produce, to test linguistic hypotheses, and to reformulate their output in the direction of the target norm in situations where errors may occur.

In Gass and Selinker’s (2001) model, the learner went from noticing a form in the input, to analyzing that form, and then to integrating it into the developing grammar. In this analysis, output functioned as a way to emphasize noticing among learners. The result is a nonlinear, recursive second language acquisition model in which output becomes an integral part of the progress, rather than solely a product of successful acquisition. Similarly, Swain (1995, 1998) argued that production has a consciousness- raising effect which leads the learners to focus on the “gaps” or problems in which they conceptualize the L2 systems.

10 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Among others, Swain and Lapkin (1995) pointed out the metalinguistic function

of output, and defined it as containing certain interactive production tasks, such as think-

aloud protocols or private speech. These tasks and protocols induce learners to reflect on

the language they use to the point that the L2 becomes not only the tool, but also the

object of linguistic construction.

Finally, Pica (1994) pointed out a major role for output in second language

acquisition. She argued with interaction and negotiation, the listener and speaker obtain

more comprehension. According to Pica, output is crucial for second language

acquisition and that requests for clarification during interaction often result in

modification of the language produced, which helps to further interlanguage

development.

Although input is the fundamental requirement for second language acquisition,

we can see from many different theoretical frameworks and theorists in the field that

researchers have presented output as an equally important component. Without output practice, learners may not achieve appropriateness and accuracy because; producing utterances causes learners to notice deficiencies in their interlanguage. Furthermore, most of these scholars agree that output practice also leads to self-correction as well as negotiation by the listener and the speaker, which results in more form-meaning connections. This occurs because interaction makes input more processable.

The present study does not focus on output-based instruction, and does not involve further discussion of output, however, it does recognize the importance of output- based practice in the second language acquisition process.

11 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Types of instruction

As pointed out in the previous section, Krashen and the Monitor model made a significant contribution to the field of second language acquisition. However, since he presented his model, his views have been criticized for being unusable and unrealistic for application in classrooms. Unfortunately, research shows that even after years of exposure to comprehensible input in the target language, learners still usually do not reach certain levels of accuracy and appropriateness with specific grammatical features

(see for example, Harley, 1993; Harley & Swain, 1984; Lightbown & Spada, 1993;

Swain, 1985, 1995; among others). These findings motivated language professionals to re-evaluate what types of instruction were effective, as well as the role of explicit grammar instruction and focus on form in the process. To be sure, there was no denying that input was crucial to second language acquisition, but researchers began to postulate that raw, natural input alone may not be the most efficient for some grammatical features to be acquired in a classroom context.

Input enhancement

Sharwood Smith (1981, 1991) introduced the concept of input enhancement, which was first known as consciousness-raising, a crucial for the discussion of the role of grammar in L2 instruction. Input enhancement, refers to “a deliberate attempt to make specific features of L2 input more salient in order to draw the learner’s attention to these features” (Sharwood Smith, 1991, p. 118). The redefined the notion of formal grammar instruction by pointing out that formal instruction has often been associated with giving a list of rules and vocabulary, which is one of the reasons why drawing learners’ attention

12 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

to the formal properties of an L2 has been viewed in a negative light. Smith, points out

that there are many different and more effective ways to draw learners’ attention to the

formal properties of language.

In this same vein, Rutherford & Sharwood Smith (1985) present different

techniques of input enhancement, which make certain features of the language more

salient. Sharwood Smith (1981, 1991) explained that different techniques may vary in

degrees of explicitness and elaboration, and explicitness refers to the sophistication and detail of the attention-drawing device. Elaboration refers to the depth and amount of time involved in implementing the enhancement techniques.

Sharwood Smith pointed out the need to draw the learners’ attention to certain grammatical aspects without resorting to lengthy grammatical explanations: metalinguistic discussion represented only one way of focusing the learners’ attention on a grammatical feature of an L2. He explained that while input enhancement presumably to increases the chances that learners will focus on a target form, it does not guarantee that they will. Furthermore, even if learners do pay attention to the enhanced form, there

is no guarantee that they will process and then acquire the form (Sharwood Smith, 1991).

For this reason he replaced the earlier term consciousness-raising with input

enhancement.

Sharwood Smith was not the only one who was interested in grammar instruction

and input enhancement. Long (1983) conducted an experiment where he compared a

certain population of naturalistic learners and classroom learners. This comparison

demonstrated that those who received some kind of formal instruction tended to have an

advantage over the naturalistic learners. This prompted Long and other researchers to

13 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

continue this vein of investigation in which apparently formal instruction could enhance

second language learning as long as the learning process took place within a

communicative context.

Long was concerned that this renewed interested in focus-on form instruction in

the classroom could result in a diminished role for meaningful instruction. Therefore, he

made a clear distinction between two types of pedagogical interventions: focus-on-form and focus-on-forms, while focus-on-form refers to techniques that draw the learners’ attention to form within a meaningful context. Focus-on-forms draws the learners’ attention to isolated language forms either independent of meaning or with no regard for meaning.

Focus-on-form is similar to input enhancement in that both techniques refer to external efforts to draw the learners’ attention to form. However, while focus-on-form techniques dictate that the technique should occur in the context of communicative events, input enhancement does not. The original way Long used the term focus-on-form excluded pedagogical practices requiring a proactive response of attention to form as opposed to a reactive response. Input enhancement, as Sharwood Smith perceives it, is less restrictive because it can be both reactive and proactive and does not require communicative interaction as a prerequisite.

Sharwood Smith defines input enhancement as any pedagogical intervention that to makes specific features of L2 input more salient in an effort to draw learners’ attention to these features. Input enhancement is based on the assertion that comprehensible input is crucial to second language acquisition, and that only the input that learners notice in same way can have an impact on acquisition. Among the samples that Sharwood Smith

14 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

(1991) offered as input enhancement techniques in his original discussion are input flood,

typographically enhanced input, and rule explanation.

Spada (1997) and Doughty & Williams (1998) suggested that contemporary

scholars tend to use the term focus-on-form in a wider sense and have extended it to

include proactive and reactive types of interaction. Currently, the term focus-on-form

refers to any technique that draws the learners’ attention to form in the classroom within

meaning-based approaches, and may occur either spontaneously or in predetermined

ways. Today, after four decades of research in second language acquisition, most

researchers agree that drawing learners’ attention to grammatical form in some way is

beneficial for many L2 learning contexts. The general consensus regarding grammar

instruction is that it may be useful provided that it is based on what we know about how

languages are acquired.

Textual enhancement

Textual enhancement is a focus-on-form technique based on using typographical

cues such as bolding, italics, underlining, or bigger fonts to draw the reader’s attention to

particular information in a text. In the context of second language acquisition, textual

enhancement draws the language learner’s attention to a specific grammatical form.

(Wong, 2005). Essentially the idea behind textual enhancement is to make more salient a

particular feature of written input that learners normally may not notice or for which they may not make form-meaning connections. A learner may not notice a particular form because it is not very important to the meaning of the message, or when a form is not perceptually salient, it is easy for the eye to miss. Textual enhancement makes these

15 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 forms more salient and making it easier for learners to notice these enhanced forms and then make form-meaning connections from them.

Like all the techniques presented in this section, textual enhancement begins with a meaningful context in this case, written input. The input could appear in the form of an article, a letter, a story or anything else that is written and meaning-bearing. The target item in this input is then enhanced by visually altering its appearance in the text by using underlining, bolding or a bigger font.

One of the advantages of textual enhancement is that it draws on the provision of meaning-bearing input, which is an important ingredient in second language acquisition.

Textual enhancement directs the learners’ attention to form while also encouraging them to process meaning-bearing input. Another advantage is that textual enhancement can be easily integrated into different types of instruction and into various course materials regardless of the teaching approach advocated. However, it is important that the learners be pushed to focus on meaning as well as form.

In order to use textual enhancement, instructors should determine the goal of the instruction and the role of the technique. It is also crucial to choose a text at the appropriate level for the learners. If the text is too difficult for them, they will need to devote most of their attention to understanding the meaning of the text and as a result, they may not pay attention to the enhanced forms.

Finally, there are many ways to enhance the forms in a text, and the type of cues used may have an impact on the effectiveness of the enhancement. Simard (2001) revealed that different cues and different combination of cues could lead to different results. In the studies on enhanced verbal morphology, some have enhanced entire verbs

16 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

(Overstreet, 1998), while others either enhanced only the inflectional ending or used a

different type of cue to enhance the ending (Leow, 2001). There are many different ways

to enhance target forms in a text and it is important to keep in mind that the way the

enhancement appears may or may not foster form-meaning connections: textual

enhancement must not distract the learner’s attention from meaning. To minimize the

chance of this happening, learners need to be engaged in processing the input and

responding to it in some way.

Structured input

As presented previously, input enhancement is effective as a focus-on-form instructional intervention in the classroom. Within input enhancement there is another type of instruction that organizes the input to meet a particular goal: this type of input is called structured input. Lee & VanPatten (1995, 2003) call activities that use this type of input, structured input activities. The goal of structured input activities is not just to get learners to notice the target forms, but also to alter any incorrect strategies they may be using to process input so that they can make form-meaning connections correctly and more efficiently.

Structured input activities are based on information about how learners make form-meaning connections. In VanPatten’s (1996) model of input processing, when learners focus on or notice input and comprehend the message, a form-meaning connection is made. Form, in this case, refers to surface features of language such as verbal and nominal morphology and functional items of language like prepositions, articles and pronouns. Meaning refers to referential real-world meaning. A form-meaning

17 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

connection consists of the relationship between referential meaning and the way it is

encoded linguistically. It is important to point out here that in order to make form-

meaning connections, learners must notice more than just the form. Noticing a form is a

start, but in order to make more efficient form-meaning connections, they also need to

comprehend the meaning that the form encodes.

Form-meaning connections have the potential to be internalized. Input processing

is the process that involves some input becoming intake, a filtered subset of the input that is available for further processing. Acquisition always begins with exposure to any kind of input: when learners attend to input and begin to make form-meaning connections, that input can become intake. Not all the input that a learner is exposed to becomes intake, only a subset of input becomes intake. This intake is held in working memory and has the potential to be internalized, when this happens, the developing linguistic system must accommodate this new linguistic data and reorganize the existing data. Once a new form- meaning connection has been accommodated, the developing system changes and is restructured. This restructuring may be partial or total. Finally, the linguistic data that has been incorporated into the developing system may be eventually accessed by the learner for output (production). This process is called output processing.

Second language acquisition, according to VanPatten’s model, depends directly on intake: the more intake, the more successful acquisition will be. Also, the richer the input is in the learners’ environment, the better their potential for intake.

Structured input activities organize the input so that the learner notices form and subsequently processes it. These activities take into account how learners make form-

18 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 meaning connections and certain tendencies they unconsciously employ to process a particular targeted form.

VanPatten’s (1996, 2004) model contains a set of principles and sub-principles to describe the strategies that learners use to make form-meaning connections from input.

This model and the corresponding principles provide instructions with guidelines for creating authentic structured input activities.

Strategies learners use to process input

The first principle and sub principles of this model are based on the understanding that learners are driven to derive meaning from the input. This means that when learners are exposed to input, they first try to understand the message the input conveys before paying attention to how that message is encoded linguistically. More meaningful items in the input are processed before less meaningful ones. The more meaningful items in the input are content words or words that carry concrete meaning; these are probably the first things that learners process. The sub-principles go on to explain that if a lexical item and a grammatical form both encode the same semantic information, the learner will process the lexical item before the grammatical form.

An important construct for understanding the first principle of VanPatten’s model is the idea of communicative value. This refers to the meaning that a form contributes to the overall meaning in a piece of input. Forms with low or no communicative value tend to be processed much later or perhaps not at all.

Sub-principle P1e says that learners can only process forms of lower communicative value if they do not have to struggle with understanding the meaning of

19 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

the message, if comprehension is difficult, they will not have any attentional resources

left over to allow them to pay attention to form. However, if the message is

comprehensible, there is a greater chance that they will also focus on form. This is why it

may be better to give learners, especially beginners, sentence-level input before requiring

them to process discourse-level input: learners are more likely to pay attention to the

relevant grammatical information that is targeted in the instruction.

Sub-principle P1f states that the position of a form in an utterance may have an

effect on whether or not it is likely to be processed. Research has shown that forms in

initial positions tend to be easier to notice followed by forms in final positions; forms in

medial positions tend to be the most difficult to notice and to process.

The second principle is known as the first noun principle. This principle refers to

the manner in which word order can affect how learners process input. A common word

order in some languages such as English is subject-verb-object (SVO), however, some

languages such as Spanish do not follow this word order. Research has shown that when

learners are confronted with sentences that do not follow the SVO order, they have the tendency to encode the first pronoun or noun phrase in the utterance as the subject or agent. When this happens, they deliver inaccurate intake data to their developing system.

The sub-principles of Principle 2 indicate that while learners have a tendency to rely on word order to interpret sentences or utterances, sometimes they may rely on other cues as well, including lexical semantics (P2a), event probabilities (P2b), and context

(P2c). Due to these factors, learners may override the first noun principle.

To summarize, VanPatten’s model of input processing describes how learners process input or how they make form-meaning connections from input. The principles

20 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

and sub-principles in the model explain which features of input learners tend to focus on

first, which features they tend to overlook, and why.

Structured input activities

Structured input activities are informed by the strategies that learners use to process input. In order to create structured input activities for a specific grammatical form, first it is important to understand what strategies learners are using to process that form. Then, the second step is to structure the input so that learners abandon their inefficient strategies for more optimal ones. The main focus of the activities is to structure the input so that learners must pay attention to the form instead of relying on content words as a strategy.

There are two types of structured input activities: referential activities and affective activities. Referential activities require that learners pay attention to form in

order to get meaning and have right or wrong answers so instructors can immediately

check if learners are indeed making the correct form-meaning connections. In this type of

activity, learners need to pay attention to both meaning and form in order to complete it

successfully. Ideally, when learners complete this activity they also achieve a

communicative competence. Therefore, this type of activity needs a meaningful context

in order to facilitate form-meaning connections.

Affective activities, on the other hand, do not have a right or wrong answer.

Instead, they require learners to express an opinion, belief or some other affective

response as they are engaged in processing information about the real world. Affective

activities work very well in communicative classrooms because they encourage learners

21 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 to give and to receive meaningful information. The purpose of affective activities is to reinforce the correct form-meaning connections by providing learners with more opportunities to hear or to see the form used in a meaningful context, as well as to encourage them to respond to the content of the input.

One of the most important advantages of structured input activities is that they are directly targeted at learners’ processing strategies, so there is a better chance that these activities will help learners make more efficient form-meaning connections. This is the only input enhancement technique that directly attempts to alter the learners’ processing strategies. Furthermore, there is a substantial amount of research demonstrating that this technique is indeed effective.

Structured input activities are ideal for the communicative language teaching classroom because the activities encourage meaningful exchanges of information while requiring learners to pay attention to form at the same time. Meaningful context is always important for the learners to process the language.

Textually Enhanced Structured Input

As discussed in the previous section, one advantage of textual enhancement is that it draws the learners’ attention to a particular grammatical feature. Textual enhancement encourages focus on form while also fostering the processing of input. One disadvantage of textual enhancement is that the instructor may not always know what learners are learning from the enhanced input. Research findings, which will be discussed in the following section, show that textual enhancement may be effective, in certain circumstances, in helping learners notice the forms that are enhanced. However, not all

22 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

the experiments developed using textual enhancement had successful results. When using

textual enhancement as a focus-on-form technique, the instructor cannot be sure whether

the learners are actually making form-meaning connections from the enhanced input.

On the other hand, structured input activities help instructors check immediately if

learners are making form-meaning connections. If learners do not make the appropriate

form-meaning connections, they cannot successfully complete the activities. This is one

advantage of structured input over textual enhancement.

There is no reason why textual enhancement cannot be used in conjunction with

other input enhancement techniques. Two combined focus-on-form techniques may

encourage both noticing and a deeper processing of the target forms. Therefore, in this

study, textual enhancement and structured input are combined in order to foster deeper

form-meaning connections that also are effective and sustained over time.

Textual enhancement can be a useful tool in helping to draw the learners’

attention to specific forms in written input. Structured input activities are directly based

on the strategies that learners use to process input. Because structured input activities are designed with the learners’ processing strategies in mind, they probably will help altering the learners’ inefficient strategies of processing input by replacing them with efficient form-meaning connections.

Therefore, the combination of textual enhancement and structured input may show positive results for better processing of a targeted grammatical feature by fostering noticing and form-meaning connection.

23 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

The Present Study

Even though most of the researchers in second language acquisition agree on the

importance of instruction, the latest debates concentrate on which types of instruction may be more beneficial for learners. This study assumes that instruction does have a great impact in acquiring a second language, specifically on the acquisition of Spanish past tense verb morphology. This experiment compares the relative effects of two types of focus-on-form instruction: textually enhanced structured input and traditional structured input and explains how this might impact the acquisition of a particular grammatical form. The research presents an experiment design that examines the differential effects of two types of input-based language instruction on how learners interpret and produce the third-person singular form of the Spanish preterit. The first portion of this study presents and analyzes previous studies done on processing instruction, structured input activities, and textual enhancement. This section is followed by research questions, hypotheses and the research methodology.

24 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

CHAPTER 2- MOTIVATION FOR THE PRESENT STUDY

Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of the second language acquisition literature

related to: structured input, textual enhancement and the Spanish preterit. This chapter is

divided into five sections: the first section gives an account of the research background

on structured input; the second section introduces the research background on attention

and noticing; the third section discusses the background research on textual enhancement;

the fourth section presents a pilot study and compares the effects of textually enhanced

structured input and meaningful-based output instruction on the acquisition of the

Spanish preterit. Also this pilot study compares the relative effects of textually enhanced

structured input and structured input alone. The fifth section presents the conclusions of

the pilot study, and details the research questions and hypothesis of the present study.

Research on Structured Input

Structured Input: Background

In the context of language acquisition, structured input seeks to meet two particular goals: to lead the learner to notice the target forms, and to alter the strategies the learner uses to process input in order to make form-meaning connections more efficiently. Structured input activities are based on how learners make form-meaning connections; this is also known as input processing (VanPatten, 1996, 2003, 2004). In order to change the strategies that learners use to process the input, first the researcher needs to know what those strategies are. Processing instruction takes into account those

25 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 strategies in order to aid the learner’s meaning-forms connections. Processing instruction is a type of grammar instruction that is informed by a model of how the learner of a second language initially processes the input in order to make form-meaning connections

(VanPatten’s model of input processing, 1996, 2003, 2004).

Van Patten and Cadierno (1993) carried out a study on object pronouns in Spanish in which they discuss the researchers discuss the impact of attempting to alter the learners’ processing of input containing non-subject verb object order. In this experiment there were three different groups: one that received no instruction (control group), another that received processing instruction, and the last one which received traditional output instruction. Traditional instruction involved grammar explanation and output- based practice, while processing instruction involved grammar explanation and input- based practice. The results of the experiment showed that the processing instruction group performed better on interpretation and on production tasks, and both treatments improved in relation to the control group. The results of this research were very important, not only for the discussion of the effects of instruction in second language acquisition, but also for the support that such instruction gives to input processing as a critical aspect of classroom second language acquisition. This study was replicated many times using other grammatical features and other Romance languages. For example,

Cadierno (1995) compared the relative effects of traditional instruction and processing instruction on the acquisition of Spanish past-tense verb morphology. Traditional instruction involved grammar explanation and output-based practice, while processing instruction involved grammar explanation and input-based practice aimed at redirecting learners’ strategies in processing input data. The subjects of the study were assigned to

26 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

one of the instructional treatments: traditional instruction, processing instruction, and no instruction (control group). The results of the study revealed significant gain in both comprehension and production for subjects in processing instruction, while subjects in traditional instruction had significant gains only in production. Learners who received processing instruction performed better than learners receiving traditional instruction and those receiving no instruction at interpreting sentence-level tasks. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in how learners receiving no instruction and traditional instruction interpreted sentence-level tasks. Processing instruction seems to have provided learners with knowledge available for both comprehension and for production, while traditional instruction seems to have provided knowledge available only for production. This research and previous studies suggest that processing instruction seems to be more beneficial when directed at altering how learners process input rather than when it is directed at altering how learners process output.

Cheng (1995) investigated the effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of the two principal copula verbs in Spanish, ser and estar. She compared the effects of traditional instruction and processing instruction on the subjects’ performance of three tasks: interpretation, sentence completion, and composition. Her results show that on the interpretation task, both the processing instruction group and the traditional group made significant gains from pre-test to post-test, with the processing group making greater gains. There was no significant difference between the processing group and the traditional group on the interpretation task of the second post-test. On both the sentence production task and the composition task, there was significant improvement from pre- test to post-test.

27 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Processing instruction has been applied not only in Spanish, but also in French in

an experiment on the French causative conducted by VanPatten and Wong (2004). In this

study, the researchers discussed the results presented by Allen (2000) and compared three

groups of instruction: processing instruction, traditional instruction and a control group

with no instruction at all. The grammar feature focused in this study was the French

causative with faire. The results of this experiment are consistent with those explained

above: the processing instruction group outperformed the traditional instruction group.

Focusing on the Italian future tense, Benati (2001) also compared the effects of

processing instruction and output-based instruction. He investigated the effects of

processing instruction with output-based instruction on the acquisition of future-tense

verbal morphology. In this study, processing instruction involved grammar explanation

and comprehension practice directed at altering the way second-language learners process input and make correct meaning-form connections. The output-based instructional treatment consisted of the explanation of grammar rules followed by written and oral practice (part of which was meaning-oriented) which was directed at altering the way second-language learners produce the target language. The results obtained in this study provide evidence that processing instruction has positive effects on the acquisition of

Italian-future tense verbal morphology, and greater effects on the developing system of beginner-second language learners than instruction of the output-based type.

The results of Benati (2001) are in some way parallel to those obtained by

Cadierno (1995) on the Spanish past tense and by Van Patten and Cadierno (1993) on the

Spanish object pronoun. Learners receiving the input processing instruction performed better overall than the learners receiving output-based instruction and no instruction, and

28 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 the group receiving output-based instruction was statistically significant compared with the group receiving no instruction. However, the output-based group also improved in the interpretation task. The output type of instruction consisted of activities containing various kinds of output practice including meaning-oriented activities. Regarding this type of activity, Benati explained the improvement of the traditional output-based instruction by arguing that possibly the subjects in this group were accessing the information obtained in the output practice as new input, and this led to their superior performance in the interpretation task since the control group received no instruction. In contrast to Cadierno’s study (1995), the two treatments in Benati’s study differ only in terms of practice (input versus output), as both treatments contained meaningful and communicative activities. This is another point to consider: some of Benati’s activities were traditional and others were meaningful output activities. The processing instruction group and the output-based group outperformed the control group in written tasks and improved equally in their performance. This is extremely important if we consider that the group receiving input processing instruction was never involved in activities in which they had to produce the target language. Therefore, despite the fact that the processing group was not familiar with the production task, it was able to perform at least as well as the output-based group. The results of this study provide further evidence of the impact of processing instruction on two different production tasks: oral and written.

The results obtained by Benati (2001) led the ongoing discussion of input processing to a new question: what happens if we compare processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction? In all the previous experiments (VanPatten &

Cadierno, 1993; Cadierno, 1995; VanPatten & Wong, 2004), processing instruction was

29 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 compared with traditional output-based instruction, but they did not compare processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction. Such a comparison would address the question of whether the results obtained in the previous studies were based on the nature of the activities carried out by the subjects. In the processing instruction groups the activities were meaningful, while in the traditional output-based instruction the activities were just mechanical. To explore these matters, Farley (2001a), focused on the acquisition of the Spanish Subjunctive and compared processing instruction with meaningful output-based instruction. The results revealed that although processing instruction was more beneficial overall than meaningful output-based instruction, the output group performed as well as the processing instruction group on the production task. The group that received processing instruction was able to perform better on the interpretation task after treatment, and this improved performance persisted through the second post-test. The results of this study also show that the processing instruction group and the meaningful output-based group brought about equally improved performances in the production of the Spanish Subjunctive of doubt. The meaningful output-based group showed an impact on what learners were able to produce, although this effect was no greater than the processing instruction influence on production. The processing instruction group, although receiving no production practice, produced as well as the meaningful output-based group.

In Farley (2001b), the comparison was also based on processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction, and the grammar point this time was again the

Subjunctive mood. The results of the study differ from those of previous research comparing processing instruction with traditional instruction (Van Patten & Cadierno,

30 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

1993; Cadierno, 1995; Cheng, 1995). In Farley’s experiment, the processing instruction

group does not appear to have been more beneficial to learners than the meaningful output-based group.

Farley (2004a) examined the effects of processing instruction on production tasks and interpretation tasks in regular, irregular, and novel Subjunctive forms in Spanish.

The results revealed that participants who received processing instruction performed as well as those who received meaningful output-based instruction on interpretation tasks and production tasks. In fact, the results of this experiment demonstrated that processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction had very similar effects on how learners interpreted and produced regular, irregular, and novel Subjunctives. However, it is important to point out that although the processing instruction group did not receive any practice producing the forms, they produced the targeted feature as accurately as the meaningful output-based group who practiced the production of the form during treatment.

More recently, some researchers explored the effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of a target form (Wong, 2004; Farley, 2004b;

Benati, 2004). In all cases the researchers attempted to isolate the effects of structured input and explicit information in order to determine which component was responsible for the beneficial effects obtained. Most of the researchers replicated the study VanPatten and Oikkenon developed in 1996: they investigated whether it was the explicit information or the structured input activities that were the causative for the beneficial effects reported in the studies of processing instruction. The study was focused on word order and object pronouns in Spanish, and the results revealed that explicit information

31 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 was not necessary for learners to make significant progress on the acquisition of the target forms. In this same area of research, Wong (2004) looked at the effects of explicit information only and structured input activities only at sentence level interpretation and production, task on word order and object pronouns in French replicating the study done by VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996). The result of Wong’s study revealed no significant effects for the group who received explicit information. Only those participants who had structured input activities were able to perform better than the control group, lending support to VanPatten and Oikkenon’s conclusions. Benati (2004) compared the results of structured input activities only and explicit information only on the Italian future tense; the results were similar to those obtained by Wong (2004). Explicit information was not necessary or beneficial for the participants. The overall results of this study provide evidence that the results obtained by VanPatten and Oikkenon’s (1996) study are generalizable to other target forms and other Romance languages.

Farley (2004b) also explored the role of explicit information in the acquisition process of the Subjunctive mood. His results revealed that explicit information affected the rate of acquisition of the target feature because the structured input group made significant improvements. However, the group that received explicit information out- performed the group who received structured activities only, in both production and interpretation tasks.

Even though the results of this last study are different from the others, it is crucial to take into account that the target item in the study is the Subjunctive mood which is not clearly transparent to the learners, especially because the Subjunctive is triggered by a

32 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 variety of semantic conditions. In this case explicit information helped learners make accurate form-meaning connections.

Research and Background on Attention and Noticing

Second language acquisition researchers have defined “attention” in many different ways. Most of the current research agrees that there are three separable but associated attentional sub-processes: alertness, orientation, and detection (Schmidt, 2001;

Tomlin & Villa, 1994). Today, among scholars, it has become widely accepted that attention plays an important role in second language acquisition. In this conceptualization of attention, alertness refers to an individual's general readiness to process with incoming stimuli; orientation concerns the allocation of resources based on expectations about the particular class of incoming information; and during detection, attention focuses on specific details. Detection would appear to require more attentional resources, therefore it enables higher-level processing of alertness and orientation (Robinson, 1995a). Stimulus detection may occur with or without awareness; compared with awareness, stimulus detection is equivalent to noticing, which is defined as awareness in the sense of momentary subjective experience (Schmidt, 1990, 1993, 2001). Scholars who propose the noticing hypothesis argue that noticing, or attention at the level of awareness, are required for L2 learning to take place.

It is important to note that the concepts of attention, noticing, and awareness, as well as their application in second language acquisition, remain controversial. The main focus of the controversy is based on the definition of awareness. Some researchers will argue that awareness is necessary for the learning process of a second language. Others

33 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

will argue that is not necessary. (For critical reviews, see, for instance, Robinson, 2003;

Simard & Wong, 2001).

Long’s (1996) updated interaction hypothesis suggests that interaction facilitates

interlanguage development in the course of the negotiation of meaning. This development

“connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and verbal

reports, noticing, and second language acquisition research output in productive ways”

(p. 451–452). Through their studies a number of scholars have empirically supported the

benefits of interaction and interactional feedback, such as recasts and negotiation, for L2

teaching and learning (see for example Ellis, et al., 1994; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003;

Mackey, 1999; Mackey & Philp, 1998). Mackey, et al., 2002 have recently begun to

explore the “question of how interaction works to bring about L2 development” (p. 182).

These learner-internal capacities such as attention and awareness, have been discussed as

potential factors mediating input and L2 development through interaction (see for

example Gass, 1997; Long, 1996; Mackey, et al., 2002). Many researchers have

investigated a possible connection between noticing of interactional feedback and subsequent learning processes (see for example Mackey, 2004; Nabei & Swain, 2002; among others).

In the field of second language acquisition, there are two major theoretical perspectives on attention and awareness: one represented by Tomlin and Villa (1994) and the other by Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1995) and Robinson (1995a, 2003) (see also Mackey, et al., 2002 for a discussion of attention and awareness). While both perspectives agree that attention is necessary for learning, they propose opposing views on the role of

34 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

awareness in learning. Awareness is usually presented as a subjective experience and

commonly compared with consciousness (Schmidt, 1990).

Tomlin and Villa (1994) suggest an analysis of attention which divides it into

three sub-components; detection, alertness, and orientation. They propose that detection

is crucial for learning, which they define as the cognitive registration of stimuli.

However, for detection to occur, awareness is not required. On the other hand, Schmidt

(1990, 1993, 1995) in his noticing hypothesis, argues for a critical role of awareness,

claiming that without noticing no learning can take place. Robinson’s (1995a) definition

of noticing indicates that: “detection with awareness and rehearsal in short-term memory”

(p. 318). He distinguishes noticing and detection on the basis of awareness.

In a later study, Robinson (2003) claims that rehearsal takes place in one’s working memory. According to Robinson (1995a), noticing is a consequence of the encoding of input in short-term memory. What is noticed may be transferred later on to long-term memory; noticing, therefore, is necessary for learning.

Scholars and theorists show a greater consensus on the important effect of noticing. Some researchers emphasize the role of noticing as a facilitator for learning; others point out that noticing is necessary for learning to occur (for example see

Robinson, 2003; Simard & Wong, 2001). Schmidt’s recent work (2001) emphasizes that noticing functions as a facilitator, and is not indispensable for learning to take place.

Furthermore, some empirical studies have provided evidence that noticing functions as a facilitator for second language acquisition (for example see Alanen, 1995; Leow, 1997,

2000, 2001; Leow, et al., 2003; Mackey, 2004; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999; among others).

Some conscious experiences are difficult to verbalize, and a lack of verbal reports does

35 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

not necessarily constitute evidence of the absence of noticing (see for example Truscott,

1998). However, verbal reports have frequently been used to measure the learners’

noticing in second language acquisition research. This study will not focus on the

investigation of the learners’ processing of the input, rather, it will center its attention on

the effect of instructional modification measured by the relationship of the input that the

learners receive to their linguistic performance.

Input enhancement and noticing

Most second language research has demonstrated the insufficiency of second

language learning from positive evidence alone (Schmidt, 1993; Swain, 1998; White,

1998; among others). The claim that L2 acquisition requires noticing is the empirical and

theoretical base of recent claims that L2 learners need instruction that will lead them to

identify the differences between their interlanguage and the target language

(consciousness raising, Sharwood Smith, 1981; input enhancement, Sharwood Smith,

1991; focus-on-form, Long, 1991). Because it is not possible to pay attention to

everything in the environment, or to the input for that matter, learners cannot take in all

the input to which they are exposed. The input needs to be filtered, and this is where

instruction comes into play. It is important to enhance certain portions of the input so that learners will notice those specific features and therefore process them. As pointed out in the previous section, it has become widely accepted that attention plays an important role in second language acquisition. However, second language acquisition researchers have defined “attention” in many different ways. The previous section presented and examined the different roles that scholars give to attention and the different definitions that they

36 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 attribute to this concept. Not all researchers agree on the same definition and role for attention in the context of second language acquisition. Because it is very difficult to measure the construct of awareness in experimental research, it has been difficult to find empirical support for either position. However, regardless of the position researchers may take concerning the issue of awareness, there is a general consensus, along with support from second language acquisition research, that some form of attention to input is necessary in order for input to become intake.

Research has shown that in some cases, greater degrees of attention (which may or may not involve awareness) may lead to more learning (for example, Leow, 1998;

Rosa & O’Neill, 1999). In the present study, the assertion that input must be noticed means that the learner must pay attention to it. This attention may or may not involve conscious awareness.

Research on Textual Enhancement

Textual Enhancement: Background

Textual Enhancement is a focus-on form technique that uses typographical cues such as bolding, underlining, and italics to draw the reader’s attention to particular information in a text. In the context of second language acquisition, Textual

Enhancement is used to draw a language learner’s attention to a target grammatical form, in order to make more salient particular features of written input that learners normally may not notice, and therefore, to facilitate form-meaning connections.

37 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Textual enhancement is a focus-on-form technique which typographically alters

written input in order to heighten a particular grammatical feature. The main goal of

textual enhancement is to make more salient some particular grammar feature, so that

learners will be more likely to pay attention to the elements of this feature. However, the

contributions of textual enhancement to second language learning are as not clear as the contributions of structured input activities. When enhanced conditions were compared with unenhanced conditions, some studies demonstrated significant effects for textual enhancement (Shook, 1994; Jordenais, et al., 1995), some reported no effect or negative for textual enhancement (Leow, 1997, 2001; Overstreet, 1998), and others reported only partial effects for textual enhancement (Alanen, 1995; White, 1998).

Alanen (1995) examined the impact of textual enhancement and explicit rule presentation on the acquisition of semi-artificial locative suffixes and consonant gradation in Finnish. The subjects for this study were adult native speakers of English. In group one, the subjects were given the rules explaining the use of the target forms, after which they were given texts to read in which the target forms were italicized. In group two, the subjects were given the rules only; they did not receive any text to read. In group three, the subjects were given the enhanced texts only and they did not receive the explicit information that groups one and two received. Group four read unenhanced versions of the text only, and they were not given any rules about the forms. As the subjects read their texts, they were asked to think aloud and their verbalizations were tape-recorded. The think-aloud data showed that the subjects who read the text with the target forms italicized made more mention of the target forms than those who read the unenhanced versions. Those who received the rules in addition to the enhanced texts did

38 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 better than the other group. What these findings revealed is that while textual enhancement was effective in helping learners notice the target forms, it was not effective in helping the subjects use the forms.

Jourdenais, et al. (1995) investigated the effects of textual enhancement on

Spanish learners’ abilities to detect Spanish preterit and imperfect verbs, and they found that textual enhancement helped the recognition of the target items and had an effect on the learners’ output, which was measured by an essay production task. These results show another positive effect of textual enhancement on the acquisition of the target form.

Shook (1994) examined the effect of textual enhancement on L2 Spanish learners’ intake of the present perfect and the relative pronouns que/quien measured by a production task. The subjects for his study were Spanish learners from a first-year and a second-year college Spanish course. Three groups were used in this study. One group read enhanced versions of the texts and was told to pay attention to the enhanced target items. The second group also read an enhanced version of the text, but they were not told to pay attention to the enhanced target forms. The third group was a control group: they read the same text as the other two groups, but these texts were not typographically enhanced and these subjects were not told to pay attention to anything in particular.

Overall, the results revealed that the two groups that read the enhanced texts performed significantly better on all the assessments tasks than the control group reading the unenhanced texts. Reading the enhanced texts allowed the subjects to recognize and produce the forms more accurately. There was no difference between those subjects who had explicit instructions to pay attention to the enhancement and those who did not receive these explicit instructions.

39 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

White (1998) investigated the effect of textual enhancement on the use of possessive determiners in English. The results showed that the participants who had textual enhancement increased the use of the target forms, however, it did not have a positive effect on the subjects’ ability to use them correctly.

Leow (1997, 2001) investigated the effect of textual enhancement and textual length on L2 Spanish learners’ comprehension of text content and intake of the impersonal imperative forms of Spanish verbs. He found a main effect for text length on comprehension with short-answer tasks, but, there was no significant effect for textual enhancement when compared with unenhanced conditions on either comprehension or intake.

Overstreet (1998) examined the effect of content familiarity and textual enhancement on L2 Spanish learners’ intake of the preterit and imperfect tenses in

Spanish and their comprehension of the passage content. The subjects were third- semester university Spanish learners. Overstreet did not find positive effects for textual enhancement which did not help learners recognize or use the target forms correctly based on paper and pencil post-tests. Overstreet did find a negative effect for textual enhancement on comprehension; and this finding is extremely important because acquisition is linked to comprehension. However, Overstreet’s study is the only study so far that has found a negative effect for textual enhancement on comprehension.

Izumi (2002) investigated the potentially positive effects of output and input enhancement on the acquisition of English relative clauses by adult learners of English as a second language. Participants of this study were adult English learners in a major U.S. university. The study addressed first, whether the act of producing output promotes

40 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

noticing of formal elements in the target language input and affects subsequent learning

of the form, and secondly, whether such output-induced noticing and learning would be

the same as that elicited by visual input enhancement designed to draw learners’ attention

to problematic form features in the input. These questions were examined in a controlled

experimental study in which the requirements of output and exposure to enhanced input

were systematically varied.

A computer-assisted reconstruction and reading task was used as the vehicle for

presentation of the target input materials. The major findings of this study are the

following: those engaged in output-input activities outperformed those exposed to the

same input for the sole purpose of comprehension in learning gains, and those who

received visual input enhancement failed to show measurable gains in learning, despite

the documented positive impact of enhancement on the noticing of the target form items

in the input. Therefore, in view the above, no support was found for the hypothesis that

the effect of input enhancement is comparable to that of output. In this study, learners

exposed to the input enhancement noticed the target form, but they did not perform better

than the other groups involved in the experiment.

In a more recent study, Wong (2002b, 2003), hypothesized that providing textual

enhancement of sentence-level input might help learners notice the target features better.

In all the textual enhancement studies reviewed before, the input was discourse-level input. The target structure was prepositions used with geographical locations in French and the subjects were first-year university learners of French. One group of participants read a text (discourse-level input) with the target prepositions enhanced via bolding and italics. A second group of participants read the same text, but the target forms were not

41 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 typographically enhanced. A third group was given sentence-level input that contained visually enhanced target structures. A fourth group read the same set of sentences but these sentences were not visually enhanced. The results revealed that those participants who used textual enhancement outperformed those who did not receive textual enhancement. The enhancement was successful in helping learners perform well on the assessment task regardless of whether the input was provided at sentence level or discourse level. However, the results showed that those participants who received sentence-level textual enhancement performed better than those who received discourse- level textual enhancement. Overall, those who received sentence-level discourse textual enhancement processed the targeted feature better than those who received discourse- level input, regardless of whether the input was enhanced or not.

All the studies presented above used typographical enhancement such as underlining, bolding, italicization, upper-and-lower cases, and varied fonts to increase the saliency of targeted forms in input. Also, there is an interactive type of enhancement explored by Gascoigne (2006a), in a study where she examined the effects of an active physical input enhancement on the recall and production of diacritics among beginning college students of French. Specifically, she compared the effect on recall of keyboarding

(the additional movements and key combinations needed to insert accents in a computerized writing environment) to that of pen-and-paper applications of diacritics.

While examining beginners of French at the post-secondary level, Gascoigne (2006a) found that students who engaged in the transcription of target passages (including the insertion of diacritics) by using computers and word processing programs recall significantly more accents in a subsequent dictation activity than students who initially

42 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 transcribed the passage by hand. Results of the post-treatment dictation and questionnaire suggest that the relatively detailed key combinations needed to insert accents by computer rendered them more vivid or distinctive and thus facilitated recall. It should be noted, however, that this study did not consider treatment effects on other aspects such as spelling, grammar, or comprehension of the transcribed passage.

Seeking to expand and to replicate her previous study (2006a), Gascoigne developed a new study involving 80 native speakers of English in beginning courses in

French and Spanish respectively. There were two groups, consisting of a control group in each language (Spanish and French), whose material consisted of a pen and paper for transcription and dictation activities. Materials for the experimental conditions included a

Gateway 2000 computer with Microsoft Word for initial transcription, and a pen and paper for subsequent dictation. Participants in all groups, (in each language and each condition), were given handouts presenting and identifying diacritical marks in their respective languages. A short list of key combinations codes needed to insert diacritics by computer was taped to the keyboard. All students in both the experimental and the control groups were given a short passage in their respective languages that contained several accent marks for transcription. The results show that the students in the experimental groups in both languages performed significantly better than their counterparts in their respective control groups. The key combination codes rendered the accents more salient during the transcription, which facilitated recall. This outcome is supported by the post-treatment questionnaire findings in which students in the experimental groups claimed to be most concerned with accents during both transcription and dictation activities.

43 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Even though the results of these two studies show positive effects for

enhancement, it is not clear whether this kinesthetic type of enhancement interferes with

other aspects of the language such as spelling, grammar, or comprehension of the

transcribed passage.

The contributions of textual enhancement to the second language acquisition field

are variable: some positive results have been reported as well as results with no effects at

all. However, Wong’s study lends support to the idea that sentence-level input is easier to

process than discourse-level input, and that textual enhancement leads learners to direct

their attention to the targeted grammatical form. Thus, structured input combined with

textual enhancement might show positive results for processing a grammatical feature.

Both focus-on-form techniques combined might show positive results for interpretation

tasks as well as production tasks.

A Pilot Study

This section provides a description of a pilot study that investigated the

differential effects of two types of instruction, one an input-based instruction and the

other an output-based instruction. This pilot study’s first goal was to examine the relative

effects brought about by the combination of two focus-on-form techniques: textual

enhancement and structured input. Its second goal was to investigate how these effects

are different from those previously reported. Furthermore, most of the previous research

has focused on the effects of textual enhancement at discourse level, with the exception

of Wong (2002). This present pilot explored how the combination of two focus-on-form techniques affects the production of the French impairfait and the Spanish preterit at

44 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

sentence-level tasks. The study presented two different experiments: the first one

explored the relative effects of two input-based instructions, textually enhanced structured input and structured input, regarding the French imparfait; the second experiment compared the relative effects of one input-based instruction and another output-based instruction, which were textually enhanced structured input and meaning- based output instruction, regarding the Spanish preterit. The research questions for each experiment are presented below:

Research Questions for the French Experiment

1. Does structured input bring about beneficial effects on sentence-level tasks involving

the production of the third-person singular form of the French imparfait?

2. Does textually enhanced structured input bring about beneficial effects on sentence-

level tasks involving the production of the third-person singular form of the French

imparfait?

3. Do structured input and textually enhanced structured input bring about equal effects

on sentence-level tasks involving the production of the third-person singular form of the

French imparfait?

Research Questions for the Spanish Experiment

1. Does meaning-based output instruction bring about beneficial effects on sentence-level

tasks involving the production of the third-person singular form of the Spanish preterit?

45 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

2. Does textually enhanced structured input bring about beneficial effects on sentence- level tasks involving the production of the third-person singular form of the Spanish preterit?

3. Do meaning-based output instruction and textually enhanced structured input bring about equal effects on sentence-level tasks involving the production of the third-person singular form of the Spanish preterit?

Hypothesis for the French Experiment

1. Structured input will improve learners’ ability to produce the French imparfait.

This hypothesis is based on previous research involving processing instruction and structured input (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; Cadierno, 1995; Cheng, 1995; Benatti,

2001; among others).

2. Textually enhanced structured input will improve learners’ ability to produce the French imparfait. This hypothesis is based on previous research involving processing instruction and structured input (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; Cadierno, 1995; Cheng,

1995; Benatti, 2001; among others). This hypothesis is also based on the finding of Wong

(2002), who reported positive effects for textual enhancement on sentence-level tasks.

3. Textually enhanced structured input will bring about greater benefits than structured input alone. Two focus-on-form techniques combined might be more effective than structured input alone. This hypothesis is based on previous results obtained on the effects of structured input and textual enhancement. In separate studies, both focus-on- form techniques separately have demonstrated positive results under certain circumstances. It is important to notice that the results found for textual enhancement in

46 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 previous research are not conclusive: some investigations found positive effects for textual enhancement (Shook, 1994; Alanen, 1995; and Jourdenais, et al., 1995), while others showed no effects (Leow, 1997, 2001), or negative effects (Overstreet, 1998).

Hypothesis for the Spanish Experiment

1. Meaning-output instruction will improve learners’ ability to produce the

Spanish preterit. This hypothesis is based on previous research developed regarding meaning-output instruction (Farley, 2001, 2004).

2. Textually enhanced structured input will improve learners’ ability to produce the Spanish preterit. This hypothesis is based on previous research on processing instruction and structured input (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; Cadierno, 1995; Cheng,

1995; Benatti, 2001; among others), and also textual enhancement at sentence-level.

(Wong, 2002)

3. Textually enhanced structured input will bring about greater benefits than meaning-output instruction. Even though in previous studies meaning-output instruction

(Farley, 2001, 2004) showed equal effects compared with processing instruction, this hypothesis is based on the fact that the enhanced structured input may function as explicit information, which may help learners to notice the target form easier and therefore process it better. Textual enhancement has shown positive effects on sentence-level tasks

(Wong, 2002). Two focus-on-form techniques combined may heighten these previous results, and two focus-on-form combined might be more effective than structured input alone. This hypothesis is based on previous results obtained on the effects of structured input alone and textual enhancement. Both focus-on-form techniques separately have demonstrated positive results under certain circumstances. It is important to note that the

47 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

results found for textual enhancement in previous research are not conclusive: some

investigations reveal positive effects for textual enhancement (Shook, 1994; Alanen,

1995; and Jourdenais, et al., 1995), others revel no effects (Leow, 1997, 2001), and there is one study (Overstreet, 1998) which reveals negative effects.

Subjects

The subjects for the French pilot experiment were college students enrolled in a

first-year language course at a Texas Tech University. The total number of subjects for

this experiment was 33. All participants were native speakers of English who did not

speak any other languages. This study was developed during a regular semester, and the

participants were currently enrolled in first-semester French. Only learners who scored

0% on the pretest were included in the data pool. In addition, any learners with learning

disabilities, hearing impairments, or those who received any outside help or practice

related to the target forms during the experiment were eliminated from the data pool. A

survey administered on the final day of the study was used to collect the information

needed to exclude participants.

The subjects in the Spanish experiment were 58 college students enrolled in a

second-year language course at Texas Tech University. All participants were native

speakers of English who did not speak any other language besides English. This pilot

experiment in Spanish was developed during the first summer semester, in which classes

are compressed into four-week session. The participants were taking second-semester

Spanish, which is the first portion of second-year Spanish. As in the French pilot study,

only learners who scored 0% on the pre-test were included in the data pool, in addition,

48 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

any learners with learning disabilities, hearing impairments, or those who received any

outside help or practice related to the target forms during the experiment were eliminated

from the data pool. A survey administered on the final day of the study was used to

collect the information needed to exclude participants.

Materials

For the French pilot experiment, there were two packets of materials, each

containing ten structured input activities with ten items in each activity. The only

difference between the structured input activities and the textually enhanced structured

input activities was that in the textually enhanced structured input packet all the target

forms were typographically enhanced by using bold, italics and a bigger font.

The structured input and the textually enhanced structured input activities were

designed following the guidelines contained in VanPatten (1996) and Farley (2005). Each

activity presented only the third-person singular form of the French imparfait and had

meaning in focus all the time. In addition, a similar amount of referential and affective

activities were included in each packet. Therefore, learners needed to do something with

the input, either to indicate when the action took place in the referential activities, or

resort to their own experience or knowledge and beliefs in the affective activities.

For the Spanish pilot experiment, there were two packets of materials, each containing fourteen textually enhanced structured input activities and meaning-output activities in each case. On the textually enhanced structured input activities all the target forms were typographically enhanced by using bold, italics, underline, and a bigger font.

49 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

The textually enhanced structured input activities and the meaning-output

activities were designed following the guidelines detailed in VanPatten (1996) and Farley

(2005). Each activity presented only the third-person singular form of the Spanish preterit and had meaning in focus all the time. For the textually enhanced structured input treatment, referential and affective activities were included in the packet. Therefore, learners needed to do something with the input, either to indicate when the action took place in the referential activities, or resort to their own experience or knowledge and beliefs in the affective activities. For the meaning-output instruction, learners needed to produce a complete sentence using the third person of the Spanish preterit, taking into account a meaningful context.

Finally, it is important to point out that none of the treatment groups in either experiment received any explicit information about the target form. The main objective of both experiments was to observe the relative effects of each approach to focus-on-form by administering the activities alone without providing any explicit information.

Assessments

For both the French pilot experiment and the Spanish pilot experiment, the

assessment material consisted of a paper-and-pencil production task. In each case, three

versions of the production task (A, B, C) were created. The subjects in each experiment

were presented with a concrete situation described in English and then they were asked to

produce sentences using the third-person singular of the French imparfait or the third-

person singular of the Spanish preterit respectively. In each case the subjects had six

infinitive verbs that they needed to use to produce the complete sentences.

50 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Procedures

The Spanish pilot and the French pilot were carried out in the participants’ regular classrooms. This includes the pre-test, treatment, and post-tests. Their regular class time was used for all the experiments.

Intact class sections were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental groups, and packets of instructional materials were distributed. On the first day of each study, the pre-test was administered and participants were given twenty minutes to complete it. After each referential activity, participants in both experimental groups were given the correct answers to the activity items. However, at no point during the study were the subjects in any group given any sort of explanation regarding answers to activity items or any other explicit information regarding the target form.

For the French pilot experiment, instruction took place over two days during 50- minute class sessions; the delayed post-test was administered fourteen days later. On the same day when delayed post-tests were administered, the subjects were asked to complete a background survey asking about their experience with other languages and any practice or help they may have received related to the target form. Survey information was used to eliminate participants from the data pool.

For the Spanish Study, instruction took place over two days during an hour-and-a- half class session. After each group completed the instructional materials, they were given an immediate post-test. On this day, as with the French pilot experiment, a background survey was given to the subjects asking about their experience with other languages, and if they had any practice or extra help outside of the class related to the

51 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

target form. This survey information was used to eliminate participants from the data

pool. Ten days later, each treatment group was given a delayed post-test.

Scoring

For the French pilot experiment and the Spanish pilot experiment, all versions of the production task were scored in the same manner. Raw scores were calculated on past items (imparfait or preterit) for the statistical analysis. Points were awarded in the following manner: one point was given for each correct use of the form if it was correct in person/number and did not contain a spelling error. The maximum score possible was six. If the learner used the correct form, but the verb did not agree in person or number or was spelled incorrectly, a half-point was awarded. In other words, if any clear attempt to produce the form was made, then a half-point was awarded. Each blank response received a score of zero, and no points were given if the form was not attempted when obligatory.

Results

Raw scores for the production pre-test and post-tests were tabulated in order to

determine the possible effects of instruction type on the way in which L2 learners

produced the target forms. Table 2.1 shows the mean test scores and standard deviations

for both data sets, and Figures 2.1 and 2.2 provide representations of the improvement

over time in each experiment. Two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) with repeated

measures were performed on both data sets. Instruction was the between-subjects factor, whereas Time (pre-test, post-test 1 post-test 2) was the within-subjects factor. The results

52 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

shown in Table 2.3 (French) and Table 2.4 (Spanish) reveal significant main effects for

Time. This means that both instruction types in both experiments had a significant impact

on test performance. The results in Table 2.2 indicate a significant effect for instruction

for the French experiment, whereas Table 2.3 shows that for the Spanish pilot experiment

there is no significant effect for instruction. However, the results are close to being

significant with a value of .07.

These results reveal that there was a significant difference between textually

enhanced structured input and structured input alone in the French pilot experiment.

However, in the Spanish pilot experiment there was no significant difference between the

treatment groups.

Discussion

The first research question for the French pilot experiment was the following:

Does structured input bring about beneficial effects on sentence-level production tasks

involving third-person singular French imparfait? Taking into account the results of the present study, the answer to this research question is affirmative. Structured input alone did bring significant improvement over time. The second research question for the French pilot experiment was the following: Does textually enhanced structured input bring about beneficial effects on sentence-level production tasks involving third-person singular

French imparfait? Taking into account the results of the present study, the answer to this research question is also affirmative. The third research question for the French pilot experiment was the following: Do structured input and textually enhanced structured input bring about equal effects on sentence-level production tasks involving third-person

53 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

singular French imparfait? The results of the present study reveal that the answer to this

question is negative. This study shows that both groups improved over time, although the

textually enhanced structured input group achieved significantly more improvement than

structured input alone. These results do correspond with hypothesis # 3 for the French

pilot experiment.

The results of this study are consistent with previous research on textual

enhancement which brought about beneficial effects. (See for example Shook, 1994;

Alanen, 1995; and Jourdenais, et al., 1995) The results of this study correspond with the

results obtained by Wong (2002) who found positive effects for textual enhancement at

sentence-level tasks. The results of this study are also consistent with the results of

previous research using structured input activities (for example see VanPatten &

Cadierno, 1993; Cadierno, 1995; Cheng, 1995; Benatti, 2001; among others) which

brought beneficial effects when compared with other types of instruction. It is important

to point out that both treatments brought significant improvement with no grammatical explanation. In both cases, neither group received any explanation about the grammatical point presented. This adds to the body of research (see for example VanPatten &

Oikkenon, 1996) that proposes that grammar explanation is useful but not necessary.

The first research question for the Spanish pilot experiment was the following:

Does meaning-output instruction bring about beneficial effects on sentence-level production tasks involving third-person singular Spanish preterit? The results of the present study reveal that the answer to this research question is affirmative. These results are consistent with those of Farley (2001) and Farley (2004), among others, in which meaning-output instruction brought about positive effects on production tasks. The

54 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

second research question for the Spanish pilot experiment was the following: Does

textually enhanced structured input bring about beneficial effects on sentence-level

production tasks involving third-person singular Spanish preterit? The results of the

present study found that the answer to this research question is also affirmative. These

results for the Spanish textually enhanced structured input group are consistent with the

results obtained in the French pilot experiment. Finally, the third research question for the

Spanish pilot experiment was the following: Do meaning-output instruction and textually

enhanced structured input bring about equal effects on sentence-level production tasks

involving third-person singular Spanish preterit? The results of the present study reveal

that the answer to this third question is also affirmative. However, it was hypothesized

that there would be a significant difference between textually enhanced structured input

and meaning-output instruction. This hypothesis was based on Wong’s experiment

(2002) where she obtained positive effects with textual enhancement at sentence-level

tasks. However, the results obtained in this pilot study were different from those obtained by Wong (2002). Both treatments equally improved over time, but there was no significant difference between the groups.

It was hypothesized that textually enhanced structured input would bring about greater benefits than meaning-output instruction. Although in previous studies meaning-

output instruction (Farley, 2001, 2004) revealed equal effects compared with processing instruction, this hypothesis was based on the fact that the enhanced structured input was expected to function as explicit information, thereby, helping the learners to notice the target form more easily and to process it more efficiently. However, the study reported different results from what was hypothesized.

55 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Although a preliminary examination of the data revealed that the mean for the

meaning-output instruction group was greater than those of the textually enhanced

structured input group, statistical analyses reveal no significant difference between the

two treatment groups.

Conclusions

Most of the research developed regarding textual enhancement has yielded mixed results. Some studies obtained positive effects using textual enhancement (see for example Shook, 1994; Alanen, 1995; and Jourdenais, et al., 1995; Wong 2002), others found no effect (see for example Leow, 1997, 2001), and one even reported negative effects for textual enhancement Overstreet 1998. Most of these studies used textual enhancement at discourse-level except for Wong (2002), who obtained positive effects for textual enhancement at sentence-level tasks.

On the other hand, structured input activities have proven to be effective when compared with other types of instruction (for example see VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993;

Cadierno, 1995; Cheng, 1995; Benatti, 2001; among others). In both pilot studies it was hypothesized that positive results would be obtained favoring textually enhanced structured input. However, only positive effects were obtained for the French pilot when textually enhanced structured input was compared with structured input alone. In all cases, all treatments improved significantly over time. However, there was no significant difference between textually enhanced structured input and meaning-output instruction regarding the production of the Spanish preterit. Meaning-output instruction equaled textually enhanced structured input.

56 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

The results of these two pilot studies present mixed results. More

experimentation needs to be developed regarding tactually enhanced structured input in

order to arrive more definite conclusions. Compared with an output-based instruction,

textually enhanced structured input revealed equal effects. However, compared with

another input-based instruction, textually enhanced structured input obtained greater performance on the production of the French imparfait on sentence-level tasks. It is important to note that the subjects of this pilot study did not receive any production practice of the target form. However, they were able to produce it after treatment and they showed consistency over time in the delayed post-test.

Table 2.1

Descriptive statistics for the French and the Spanish data

French Data Time Instruction N Mean SD

Pre-test SI 19 0.00 0.00

TESI 14 0.00 0.00

Post-test 1 SI 19 1.16 2.77

TESI 14 5.00 3.42

Post-test 2 SI 19 2.32 3.45

TESI 14 4.43 3.61

Spanish Data Pre-test MOI 29 0.00 0.00

TESI 29 0.00 0.00

Post-test 1 MOI 29 3.17 2.51

TESI 29 2.34 2.41

57 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Posttest 2 MOI 29 1.52 2.23

TESI 29 0.62 1.50

Table 2.2

ANOVA results for the French data

Source df SS MS F p

Between-subjects

Effects

Instruction 1 95.28 95.28 7.50 .01

Within-subjects

Effects

Time 2 225.03 112.51 24.91 .00

Instruction x Time 2 59.69 29.85 6.61 .00

Error (Instruction) 31 394.06 12.71

Error (Time) 62 280.01 4.52

58 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Table 2.3

ANOVA results for the Spanish data

Source df SS MS F p

Between-subjects

Effects

Instruction 1 14.37 14.37 3.38 .07

Within-subjects

Effects

Time 2 224.41 112.21 41.56 .00

Instruction x Time 2 7.22 3.61 1.34 .27

Error (Instruction) 56 238.39 4.26

Error (Time) 112 302.37 2.70

Figure 2.1. Interaction plot for French data

6

5 SI

4 TESI

ore 3 Sc 2

1

0 Pretest Post1 Post2

59 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Figure 2.2 Interaction plot for Spanish data

4 MOI 3 TESI

2 Score

1

0 Pretest Post1 Post2

Summary of the Overall Results of Data from the Pilot Study

The French experiment demonstrated that both textually enhanced structured input and structured input improved over time. However, textually enhanced structured input brought about greater improvement than structured input alone. These results show that two focus-on-form techniques combined might be more effective than just one.

However, the results of this experiment are not conclusive. More experimentation must be developed in this area, especially using bigger pool data; with a pool of only 33 subjects for the French pilot experiment, its results were limited.

The Spanish pilot experiment showed that textually enhanced structured input and meaning-output instruction improved similarly over time. However, the initial hypothesis indicated that textually enhanced structured input would outperform meaning-output instruction. In this case, both treatments improved equally and there was not a significant

60 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 difference between the treatments. The difference between these two experiments demonstrates that more investigation needs to be developed using textual enhancement and combining this focus-on-form with other techniques in order to reach more definite conclusions.

The results of these pilot studies motivated some changes in the design of the activities and the design of the whole dissertation. In the following section, these changes are presented and explained.

Revisions Made Since the Pilot Study

Some revisions were made taking into account the results of both the French and the Spanish pilots. First, for the dissertation twelve different sections were used rather than eight intact classes. The main idea was to be able to obtain more subjects for the experiment after some subject elimination.

In order to avoid confusion or misunderstandings, some revisions in the activities used for both treatments were made. In the Spanish pilot fourteen activities were used, seven per day. However, for the dissertation twelve activities were used, six per day.

This change was due to the fact that the present study was conducted during a long semester, when the regular class time is 50 minutes.

For the present study only input-based instruction was included; the output-based instruction was eliminated. Since positive results were obtained for textually enhanced structured input, it was worth comparing it with structured input alone in a Spanish experiment and in order to determine if the positive results were sustained for this new experiment.

61 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

The assessment tests were modified in response to feedback given by instructors and also the feedback of some students, who suggested incorporating more items into the pre-and post-tests and also increasing the possible options. For the Spanish pilot, the assessments had two possible answers, either a or b. For the dissertation, the possible options were three, either a, b or c. Also the number of items in each interpretation test was increased to eighteen. More items with present tense, and also distractors, were included in each of the interpretation tests in order to improve the testing instruments for the study. The improved testing materials used in the present study are provided in

Appendix C.

Another revision made in the present study is the length of time in which the experiment was carried out. The Spanish pilot was carried out during a summer session, where the instruction is compressed into four weeks. The dissertation was developed in a regular semester following the design of the French pilot study. In addition to this modification, the present study was developed with students enrolled in first-semester

Spanish, following the design of the French pilot study. Also for the Spanish pilot the second post-test was given ten days after the first post-test because of time constraints.

For the dissertation, the delayed post-test will be given fourteen days after the first post- test.

The Spanish pilot was developed with students enrolled in second semester

Spanish in the summer. This fact meant that the experiment had to be carried out early during the summer with only ten days left for a delayed post-test. The results also showed that some learners used the Spanish imperfect in their production tasks instead of Spanish preterit. Therefore, a change of level was made to assure that learners would not be

62 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

exposed to any form of the Spanish past tense before or after the treatment. Also this

change allowed the researcher to develop the experiment at the end of the semester when

students do not have the option to change sections or drop the course, thus providing a

more extensive pool of subjects.

Design of the Present Study

In light of the pilot findings, the present study seeks to compare textually

enhanced structured input with structured input alone, and the following research

questions motivate the design.

Research Questions:

1.- Does structured input bring about beneficial effects on sentence-level tasks involving…

a) the interpretation of the third-person singular form of the Spanish Preterit?

b) the production of the third-person singular form of the Spanish Preterit?

2.- Does textually enhanced structured input bring about beneficial effects on sentence- level tasks involving…

a) the interpretation of the third-person singular form of the Spanish Preterit?

b) the production of the third-person singular form of the Spanish Preterit?

3.- Do structured input and textually enhanced structured input bring about equal effects on sentence-level tasks involving ….

63 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

a) the interpretation of the third-person singular form of the Spanish Preterit?

b) the production of the third-person singular form of the Spanish Preterit?

Hypothesis:

1.- Structured input will improve the learners’ ability to interpret and to produce the Spanish Preterit. This hypothesis is based on the previous research on processing instruction. (Cadierno, 1995). The results of Cadierno, revealed that learners who received processing instruction not only made significant gains on the comprehension task but also performed better than the other treatment groups.

2.- Textually enhanced structured input will improve the learners’ ability to interpret and to produce the Spanish Preterit. In Cadierno’s study (1995) the results favored structured input, therefore structured input combined with another focus on form technique will not mitigate the results brought about by the structured input component.

Therefore positive results are expected.

3.- Textually enhanced structured input will bring about equal effects on interpretation tasks involving the Spanish preterit. However, textually enhanced structured input will bring about greater overall improvement than structured input alone on production tasks. This hypothesis is based on Wong’s (2002) study where she obtained positive results using textual enhancement on sentence-level tasks. Since structured input presents input at the sentence-level, textual enhancement within sentence-level tasks will enhance the effects of structured input. The effectiveness of

64 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 structured input alone is already documented by a significant body of research. This hypothesis is also based on the previous French pilot experiment, where positive results for production of the imparfait were obtained.

65 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

CHAPTER 3- METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter presents a report of the experiment used to investigate the different effects of textually enhanced structured input and structured input on the acquisition of the Spanish preterit. In Chapter 2 it was hypothesized that textually enhanced structured input has an overall more beneficial effect on learners than structured input instruction alone.

This chapter is divided into seven sections. The first section gives a summary of the research design. The second section presents background information about the learners who participated in the study. The third section introduces the materials used in the instruction phase of the experiment. The fourth section explains how the assessment of the learners’ performance was accomplished. The fifth section gives details of the procedures used during the experiment. The sixth section describes the methods used in scoring the assessment tests. In the last section, the analysis of the data is presented.

Research Design

This study explores the effects of structured input instruction and textually enhanced structured input instruction on learners’ acquisition of the Spanish past tense. It was hypothesized that both types of instruction would have positive effects on learner performance, but that the textually enhanced structured input instruction would show an overall greater improvement after treatment. The subjects used in this study were L2 learners’ of Spanish studying at the university level. Subjects were divided into two

66 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

experimental groups: one group that received structured input instruction and the other that received textually enhanced structured input instruction.

To determine the effects of the two treatments, interpretation and production tests were developed and administered to both groups. There were three versions of each test

(versions A, B, C). All versions of the tests were used for the pre-test, the first post-test and the second post-test administered two weeks (fourteen days) after instruction. In order to assure test equivalence, a Latin square was used to determine the test version used in each case. Test versions were also randomized within the treatment according to the Latin square. A researcher not connected with this study reviewed each version of the tests and found them equal in every aspect. The researcher indicated that the vocabulary and the verbs were balanced in each version of the test.

Each course section either met on Mondays and Wednesdays, or Tuesdays and

Thursdays. Table 3.1 summarizes the timeline for the research.

Table 3.1

Summary Timeline of the Research

______

Pre-test Instruction Instruction Post-test 2 Post-test 1 (Activities A-F) (Activities G-L) ______

Week 10 Week 11 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13

______

67 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Scores on the first and second post-tests were compared in order to examine the differential retentive effects of SI and TESI on the acquisition of the Spanish past tense.

The interpretation test was designed to measure the subjects’ gain in their ability to interpret Spanish past tense forms correctly. The production test was designed to measure the subjects’ gain in their ability to produce Spanish past tense forms.

Subjects

The participants consisted of 240 university students from twelve different sections of a first-semester Spanish review course (SPAN 1507) at Texas Tech

University. First-semester students were selected so that they would not be familiar with the Spanish past tense (which is covered in the second semester). The vocabulary items presented in the instructional and testing material would not limit their performance on the activities. Participants did not receive explicit instruction or homework assignments on the Spanish past tense prior to the experiment. To ensure that prior exposure (either at the university or high-school level) did not constitute a confounding variable, a subset of the subjects who scored less than 60% on both the interpretation task and the production task of the pre-test was used in a separate analysis. Background information from the participants was gathered using a written survey; as a result of this survey, all participants who knew more than one language or had contact with Spanish outside of class were excluded from the study. In addition, those who sought any additional explanation or practice outside of class during the treatment period were excluded. All students who were not native speakers of English or reported any learning disabilities or hearing impairments were removed from the data pool. Although some students may have

68 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

received previous instruction on the Spanish past tense, a separate analysis of data using

this 60 % cutoff level served as a control with regard to the subjects’ prior knowledge and

also served to avoid ceiling effect.

The twelve intact course sections were randomly assigned to two treatment

groups: structured input instruction and textually enhanced structured input instruction.

Intact classes were chosen instead of volunteers in order to avoid the effects of self- selection. Students who were present all four days of the experiment were given extra credit toward the final exam.

The subjects were enrolled in a Spanish language program based on the communicative approach and were using: Puntos de Partida 7th Edition, lab manual and complementary material. In this course students also watched the Destinos video series which served as material for classroom discussion and in-class activities. Two weeks before this experiment and until the end of the semester, students did not watch Destinos to avoid any interference.

All courses of Spanish 1507 were accustomed to both input-based and output- based activities, both in-class and on-line. All instructors used the same laboratory manual, syllabus, and exams across the classes, although they were encouraged to develop their own activities when time allowed. Classes met three days per week, 50- minutes each day. Time during class was devoted to communicative activities, while students worked on grammar and vocabulary exercises on-line outside of class.

This experiment was conducted toward the end of the fall semester, 2006. Some background information was gathered from the participants using a written survey (see

Appendix D). Through this survey information about the participants of this experiment

69 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

was gathered in order to eliminate confounding variables. The original data pool

consisted of 240 subjects; after taking into account the information provided by the

survey, 178 subjects were removed, so that the final data pool contained 62 subjects. In addition, the data for a subset of subjects who scored less than 60% on both the interpretation task and the production task of the pretest were also examined.

Materials

Two course packets and two different types of assessment were developed for this experiment. A description of the instructional and assessment materials is provided in this section.

Instructional Materials

There were two instructional material packets for each treatment (see Appendices

A and B). Each packet was designed to reflect a different approach to teaching the

Spanish past tense. The textually enhanced structured input (TESI) packet consisted of twelve structured input activities where the verbs were enhanced by underlining, bolding and using a larger font. (There were three referential activities and three affective activities). The structured input (SI) packet consisted of twelve structured input activities.

(There were three referential activities and three affective activities). Both instructional packets contained identical subject matter, vocabulary and number of tokens. The symmetries between instructional packets with regard to the verbs used are shown in table 3.2.

70 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Table 3.2

Frequency of verbs used in TESI and SI activities

______VERBS TESI Activities SI Activities ______

vivir 6 6

escribir, tener, actuar 5 5

fundar, viajar 4 4

leer, influir, cantar, trabajar ser 3 3

beber, hacer, manejar, dormir comer, ir, fumar 2 2

decir, ayudar, hablar 1 1 ______NOTE: Values refer to number of appearance of each verb in each instructional packet

For both groups the same two-page handout was distributed on the first day of instruction. This handout contained a review of the verbs and the adverbs of time that were going to be used during the study. (A sample of the handout is provided in

Appendix G). Five minutes were given in both groups to read and to review the verbs and adverbs before they started doing the activities in class. Both referential and affective activities included written modes; however, no grammar explanation was given to either group.

It is important to note the distinction between referential and affective activities.

Affective activities do not have a correct answer; there is no right or wrong answer for these activity items (Farley, 2005). This type of activity asks for the learner’s opinion or belief. In contrast, referential activities have only one correct answer, and they require the

71 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

learner to focus on form and to make a decision based on form (Farley, 2005). Referential

and affective activities are not mechanical activities. On the contrary, learners have to

make a decision about how to answer based on the meaning of the sentence, and not on

pure repetition. Three referential activities were presented first and then three affective activities. The reason behind this is that in referential activities learners need to pay close attention to the verb endings and meanings in order to complete them. In the case of affective activities, it may be possible that learners comprehend the meaning of the utterance and then choose the correct answer based on their own experience or knowledge. It is more beneficial for learners if referential activities are completed first and then learners complete affective activities. These types of activities serve as a reinforcement after learners have already begun to notice the target form, which in this case, is the Spanish preterit.

Both instructional packets were balanced to provide an equal number of referential and affective items, as shown in table 3.3 below. (A sample of each packet is provided in Appendices A and B).

Table 3.3

Distribution of referential and affective activities

______Treatment Referential Affective Activities Activities ______

TESI 6 6

SI 6 6 ______NOTE: Value refers to number of activities in each instructional packet

72 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Structured Input Packet

The structured input packet was based on VanPatten’s (1996, 2003, 2004) input processing model and the principles presented within this framework.

Structured input activities take into account the interpretation strategies of the learner and force the learner to pay attention to the forms and to seek meaning; therefore, learners are pushed to notice and to process them constructing form-meaning connections. The learner does not need to produce the target forms, in this case the

Spanish Preterit, but rather to focus entirely on the interpretation of pre-formed sentence- level tasks that are structured to benefit the learner’s processing strategies.

The activities designed in this experiment took into account VanPatten’s (1996) proposed six guidelines for the successful design of structured input activities which are expanded upon in Farley (2005):

a.- Present one thing (grammatical point) at a time.

b.- Keep meaning in focus.

c.- Have learners do something with the input.

d.- Keep the learner’s processing strategies in mind.

e.- Move from sentences to connected discourse.

f.- Use both oral and written input.

The first four guidelines each refer to structured input activities; the last two guidelines refer to an entire lesson. In the case of the present experiment only, sentence level discourse was used and only written input was presented to the learners. The main reason for not following guidelines e and f are the following: previous research (Wong,

2002) demonstrated that the most successful research in textual enhancement was

73 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 obtained using sentence-level tasks. The present study follows Wong’s (2002) study regarding the type of enhancement and its design. In this experiment, only written input was used because of the nature of the treatments that were compared.

One grammatical point was presented in the structured input package: the third person of the Spanish preterit. Six total activities where presented each day of the treatment, with three being referential and three being affective activities. Presenting one grammatical feature at a time assures that learners will most likely pay attention to the target form and will be able to make form-meaning connections. Regarding guideline b, meaning was kept in focus at all times. In order to complete each item of an activity, learners had to understand each sentence as a whole and not simply respond mechanically.

The participants were required not only to read the input, but also to make a decision concerning what they were reading. For the referential activities, participants were required to select the correct adverb of time to complete each sentence. For the affective activities, participants had to select the pre-formed statement that expressed their opinion in past tense. Learners had to make decisions while they were completing the activities, and they were pushed to make decisions based on meaning and form instead of being mere recipients of raw input. What learners had to do with the input was different from one activity to the next. For example, some activities were based on a binary option such as true, false, probable or improbable, and yes or no. Other activities required learners to decide the frequency of an activity, choosing between sometimes, often, never, and so on.

74 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

All the activities included in the packet were designed having the learners’

processing strategies in mind (VanPatten’s, 2004, Principle 1b). The lexical preference

principle was taken into account in the design of all activities. This principle basically

states that when there are two or more elements that communicate the same meaning in

an input string, learners will rely on the lexical item. For this reason, all the adverbs of

time were removed from the sentences. In this manner, learners were forced to pay

attention to the form of the verbs and not to rely on lexical items such as yesterday,

today, now, and so on. By structuring the activities in this manner, the Nonredundancy

Principle was also taken into account. Learners did not have the form and the adverb of

time when both indicated if the utterance happened in the past tense, they only had the

verb indicating the tense. Therefore, learners had to pay attention to the form and the

meaning of the utterance.

In all the activities each utterance was restructured in so that the verb was placed

in the first portion of the sentence. In this way, Principle 1 f. (VanPatten, 2004) was also

taken into account. (This is the Sentence Location Principle which states that there is a hierarchy with regard to the processing according to the location of the item). Initial and final items are most likely to be processed with least difficulty, while items which are in the middle portion of an utterance are the least likely to be processed. This is another reason why the subject of all the items was separated and the verb was placed first in each sentence. Therefore, when learners focused on the first portion of each utterance, they focused on the target form. This strategy helped learners to focus on the form and to notice it, making it more salient.

75 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Below are some sample items from one referential activity and one affective

activity from the structured input packet.

Activity C: Oprah Winfrey: Now and Then.

A recent article in a magazine summarized the life and contributions of Oprah Winfrey. Below are a few excerpts from the article. Indicate whether each is referring to her past or her present life.

1- Vivió en Baltimore.

a. Ahora b. Hace años

2- Tiene un programa de T. V. famoso.

a. Hace años b. Ahora

3- Fundó organizaciones para niños.

a. En el presente b. Hace años

4-Actuó en el cine.

a. Cuando era joven b. Actualmente

5-Influye en muchas mujeres.

a. En el presente b. En el pasado

76 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity L: Your Best Friend’s Life

What kind of life has your best friend had? Read the following phrases and indicate those activities that you think he/she probably has done once, more than once, or never.

Nunca Una vez Muchas veces

1- fumó un cigarrillo. ______

2- bebió mucho. ______

3- fue a la cárcel. ______

4- cantó en un concierto. ______

5- hizo algo ilegal. ______

After completing each referential activity, the students were given feedback as to what the right answers were. This feedback was given in order to ensure that participants were making clear connections between form and meaning, and also to ensure that the treatment was reflecting a typical language classroom in which learners’ questions are answered. During this time the information in the handout provided was not repeated and no grammatical explanation was given to the students. In addition, no feedback or justification was supplied when the correct answers to the activities were given. Six activities (three referential and three affective) were completed on the first day of instruction and six activities (three referential and three affective) were completed on the second day of instruction.

77 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Textually Enhanced Structured Input Packet

The textually enhanced packet was created based on the structured input packet: basically this treatment had the exact same activities as the previous packet. (A sample of this packet is provided in Appendix B).However, all verbs were visually enhanced by italicizing, underlining, bolding and using a larger font (16 point font, normal font was

12) in an attempt to draw extra attention to the target form. For this treatment the students were not asked to produce the target form at any time. This packet, like the previous one, contained only input-based sentence-level tasks.

The same guidelines and principles used for the structured input packet were taken into account for the design of the textually enhanced activities. This packet contained identical subject matter, vocabulary and number of tokens. In this packet, the two-page handout was included for the first day of instruction. These handouts contained a review of verbs and adverbs of time that were going to be used during the study.

Following the same procedure as in the structured input packet, five minutes were given to this group to read and to review the verbs and adverbs before they started doing the activities in class.

For this packet only, written input was included and only one grammatical point was presented: the third-person singular Spanish Preterit. Six activities where presented each day of the treatment with three being referential and three being affective activities.

Meaning was kept in focus at all times. In order to complete each item of an activity, learners had to understand each sentence as a whole and not merely respond mechanically. The participants were required not only to read to the input, but also to make a decision concerning what they were reading. For the referential activities, the

78 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

participants were required to select the correct adverb of time to complete each sentence.

For the affective activities, the participants were required to select the pre-formed

statement that expressed their opinion in past tense. Learners had to make decisions while

they were completing the activities; they were pushed to make decisions based on

meaning and form instead of being mere recipients of raw input. What learners were

required to do with the input was different from one activity to the next as was done with

the structured input packet.

Below are some sample items from one referential activity and one affective

activity from the structured input packet.

Activity C: Oprah Winfrey: Now and Then

A recent article in a magazine summarized the life and contributions of Oprah Winfrey. Below are a few excerpts from the article. Indicate whether each is referring to her past or her present life.

1- vivió en Baltimore.

a. Ahora b. Hace años

2- tiene un programa de T. V. famoso.

a. Hace años b. Ahora

3- fundó organizaciones para niños.

a. En el presente b. Hace años

79 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

4-actuó en el cine.

a. Cuando era joven b. Actualmente

5-influye en muchas mujeres.

a. En el presente b. En el pasado

Activity L: Your Best Friend’s Life

What kind of life has your best friend had? Read the following phrases and indicate those activities that you think he/she probably has done once, or more than once, or never.

Nunca Una vez Muchas veces

1- fumó un cigarrillo. ______

2- bebió hasta emborracharse (drunk). ______

3- fue a la cárcel. ______

4- cantó en un concierto. ______

5- hizo algo ilegal. ______

80 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

After completing each referential activity, the students were given feedback as to what the right answers were. This feedback was given in order to ensure that participants were making clear connections between form and meaning, and to ensure that the treatment was reflecting a typical language classroom in which learners’ questions are answered. During this time the information in the handout provided was not repeated and no grammatical explanation was given to the students. In addition, no feedback or justification was supplied when the correct answers to the activities were given. Six activities (three referential and three affective) were completed on the first day of instruction and six activities (three referential and three affective) were completed the second day of instruction.

Assessment

There were three versions (A, B, C) of both the interpretation test and the production test. Having versions of each test allows for six possible orderings. Five of those test sequences were used within each treatment group, as shown in the table below.

81 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Table 3.4

Assessment test sequencing for the TESI and SI treatment groups

______Interpretation & Interpretation & Interpretation & Treatment Production Pre-test Production Post-test 1 Production Post-test 2 ______TESI Group 1 Version A Version B Version C SI Group 1

TESI Group 2 Version A Version C Version B SI Group 2

TESI Group 3 Version B Version A Version C SI Group 3

TESI Group 4 Version B Version C Version A SI Group 4

TESI Group 5 Version C Version A Version B SI Group 5

TESI Group 6 Version C Version B Version A SI Group 6 ______

Interpretation Task

The interpretation task required the participants to read the utterance and to select the correct adverb of time from the answer sheet; participants decided among three different options. At the end of the test, participants transferred their answers to a scantron answer sheet that required them to fill in the bubbles containing the letter of each answer. There were a total of eighteen items on the test, consisting of:

• Six items containing preterit tense forms

• Six items containing present tense forms

• Six items containing distracters

82 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

The six target items were designed to measure how well learners could interpret the Spanish preterit. Finally, the distracter items involved choosing a phrase that best completed the sentence because of its tense, gender or person-number agreement.

The interpretation task was limited to 18 items due to time constraints. The language used in the interpretation task consisted of high-frequency vocabulary that the subjects had already covered in previous lessons. The test items were checked to ensure that the vocabulary had been taught prior to the experiment. All three versions of the interpretation test were balanced for content as shown in table 3.5 below.

Table 3.5

Frequency of verbs used in interpretation test

______VERBS Version A Version B Version C ______leer 1 1 1 viajar 1 1 1 hablar 1 1 1 beber 1 1 1 dormir 1 1 1 actuar 1 1 1 trabajar 1 1 1 hacer 1 1 1 comer 1 1 1 escribir 1 1 1 ser 1 1 1

83 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

decir 1 1 1

vivir 1 1 1

tener 1 1 1

influir 1 1 1

fundar 1 1 1

ayudar 1 1 1

manejar 1 1 1

cantar 1 1 1

fumar 1 1 1

llamar 1 1 1 ______NOTE: Value refers to number of appearances in each version of the test

Production Task

The production task consisted of completing sentences, and infinitive verbs were given. There were a total of six items, consisting of:

• Four regular infinitive verbs

• One irregular infinitive verb

• One regular verb that was new to the participants

All production tasks were similar in each packet. (Both complete packets for each treatment are provided in Appendices A and B). No items using present tense were included in the production tasks due to time constraints. Below there is a sample of a production task.

84 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Production Test # A: La semana pasada del estudiante típico...

Intructions: Write 6 things about what the typical student at Texas Tech did last week.

ir tener manejar fumar bailar (to dance) escribir

1-______

2-______

3-______

4-______

5-______

6-______

Subjects were instructed to complete each sentence in a logical manner by using

the Spanish preterit. Four items required the students to produce complete sentences

using the Spanish preterit with regular verbs.

There were two reasons why only six target items were included in the production

task. The first reason is that scores on the production pre-test were predicted to be very low, and that having a maximum score of 6 would be sufficient to determine improvement over time on the production test. The results of the production pre-test verify that this was an accurate prediction since the pre-test means were 0 for both the

85 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

structured input group as well as 0 for the textually enhanced structured input group. The second reason was that the time constraints given did not allow for more items because not only were the interpretation and production tests administered, but consent forms and background surveys needed to be completed as well. All three versions of the production

test were balanced for content as shown in table 3.6 below.

Table 3.6

Frequency of verbs used in production tasks

______Version A Version B Version C ______ir hablar leer

manejar beber viajar

bailar cocinar caminar

tener trabajar hacer

fumar comer vivir

escribir dormir ayudar ______

Procedure

The pre-test, consisting of an interpretation and a production task, was

administered before the treatment. The pre-test measured the knowledge and ability of

the learners’ use of the third-person singular Spanish preterit. The pretest also served as a

means of eliminating participants with prior knowledge from the final data pool.

All the experimentation took place in the participants’ regular classrooms during

their regular class periods. Before the pre-test, the classes were randomly assigned to the

86 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

two instructional conditions: textually enhanced structured input and structured input.

All instruction took place during three class days (Monday, Wednesday and Friday)

within the same week and no homework was given. Instructional materials were collected from the participants after the treatment.

The two days of experimental instruction were conducted out by six instructors who were not the participants’ regular instructors, and who had never taught them before this study. In the cases where an instructor was teaching two sections, he/she was given one course with textually enhanced structured input instruction and another with structured input instruction. In this way, each instructor was responsible for teaching one section of each treatment. All of the instructors were native speakers of Spanish. In order to avoid an instructor’s effect, all instructors were used for both conditions, as shown in table 3.7 below.

Table 3.7

Distribution of instructors across treatment groups ______Instructors #TESI groups taught # SI groups taught ______Instructor A 1

Instructor B 1 1

Instructor C 2 1

Instructor D 1 1

Instructor E 1 1

Instructor F 1 ______

87 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Although the instructors were distributed evenly in both treatments, in order to avoid possible bias toward one treatment group, an hour-and-twenty-minute meeting was held with all instructors where written instructions were also given to all of them, taking into account the type of instruction in each case. The guidelines given to the instructors were discussed during this meeting with them, and they were also given written instructions on how to carry out the treatment each day. The guidelines given to the instructing personal are reproduced below:

• Always read the instructions aloud in English when you begin each

activity.

• All activities must be done individually (not in pairs or groups).

• Give the students ample time to complete an activity before moving to the

next one.

• The instructor will read each item and ask for an answer from students. If

an incorrect answer is given, then the instructor should call upon another

person. Keep pursuing an answer until someone gets it right. Then move

on to the next item.

• Keep the instruction as simple as possible. Do not provide the students

with any extra input or feedback.

• Never explain why an answer is right or wrong.

A survey was given to all the instructors. The questions asked in the survey are reproduced below:

1.- Did students have difficulty understanding the instructions to any

activities? Was there visible evidence of this?

88 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

2.- Did students have difficulty understanding the vocabulary used in the

activities? Was there visible evidence of this?

3.- Did students have difficulty understanding the instructions concerning the

testing materials? Was there visible evidence of this?

4.- Were there any other visible difficulties during the experiment? If so,

please explain.

The instructors were told to circle “yes” or “no” in each question and to explain if

necessary. None of the instructors reported any difficulty during the experiment, neither

with the instructions nor the vocabulary. All the vocabulary used for the design of the

activities was vocabulary already covered in class. In order to assure that students were

familiar with it, a handout with adverbs of time and relevant vocabulary was given to the

students to review before they started each treatment.

No other difficulty related to the experimental materials was reported by the

instructors. As mentioned earlier in the section called “materials”, both groups had

identical content and number of tokens. In addition, an effort was made to keep the

textually enhanced structured input and the structured input groups comparable with

regard to time, and task and amount of practice. Both groups completed a pre-test on the

first day of instruction. Then on the second day of instruction, learners completed six

activities. On the third day of instruction, learners completed six more activities and a post-test. Fourteen days afterwards, a delayed post-test was given.

89 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Scoring

For the statistical analysis, raw scores were calculated on the past-tense items in

the following manner: for the interpretation portion, each correct answer received a score

of one and each incorrect or blank response received a score of zero. The total possible

points were eighteen. A correct response involved selecting the correct adverb of time

which indicated if the sentence should be expressed in past tense or present tense.

For the production portion, two points were given for each correct use of the

preterit tense, if the form was correct in person/number and did not contain a spelling

error. Hence, the maximum score possible was twelve. If the learner used the preterit

form, but the verb did not agree in person or number or was spelled incorrectly (for

example, an accent mark was lacking, or if escribio was written instead of escribió), one

point was awarded. If a clear attempt to produce the preterit was made, then one point

was given. Each blank response received a score of zero, and no points were given if a preterit form was not attempted when obligatory.

An alternate scoring system was also applied in which no half-credit was awarded, yet the results for this alternate scoring system were no different from the one reported here.

Analysis

The raw scores for each portion of the pre-test and post-tests were tabulated, and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was performed. The independent variable was Instruction Type (TESI, SI), whereas the dependent variable was Time (pre-test, post-test 1, post-test 2). The analysis was composed of two separate

90 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 repeated measures or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA): one for interpretation data and another for the production data. Each analysis examined the within-subjects effect for

Time, the between-subjects effect for Instruction Type, and the interaction between Time and Instruction Type. In order to determine if there was any statistical difference between the results of pre-tests and post-tests 1 and 2 regarding interpretation and production tests,

T-tests were calculated in each case. The discussion of the results of each T-test is presented and analyzed in chapter four.

91 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

CHAPTER 4- RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter details the analysis of the results from not only the interpretation tasks but also the production tasks used as pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test. This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section provides the descriptive statistics of the interpretation data. The second section analyzes the interpretation data. The third section analyzes the production data, while the fourth section provides an analysis of the present tense data.

Descriptive Statistics of All Data

In order to determine if there was a statistical difference between the results of pre-test for interpretation tasks, a T-test was calculated between both pre-tests for textually enhanced group and for structured input group. The results showed a p value of

.61. This means that there is no significant difference between the results of both pre-tests for textually enhanced structured input and the structured input. Both groups performed equally regarding the interpretation of the Spanish preterit.

In the case of the production data, both groups obtained a score of 0 on the pre- test. This means that both groups performed equally regarding the production of the

Spanish preterit. In summary, there is no significant difference regarding the interpretation and the production of the Spanish preterit on the pre-tests for textually enhanced structured input and structured input.

92 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Table 4.1 shows the results of the mean test scores and standard deviation for both

the TESI and the SI groups. This table demonstrates that for the interpretation data, both

the TESI and the SI groups improved over time, from the pre-test to the first post-test.

The improvement was also sustained over the fourteen-day period until the second post-

test. The standard deviations did not differ dramatically on any of the tests for either

group. Similarly, looking at the production data in table 4.2, the zero means on the pre-

test, together with the higher means on both post-tests, indicate great improvement for

both textually enhanced structured input and structured input groups. The standard deviations did not differ dramatically on any of the tests for either group. In summary, the results of this study indicate that both textually enhanced structured input and structured input have positive effects on how learners interpret and produce Spanish preterit and these effects proved to be durable over a period of fifteen days. That is, even after an additional fourteen days, both TESI and SI had significant impacts on the learners’ performance on both interpretation and production of the Spanish preterit.

93 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Table 4.1

Number of subjects, means and standard deviation for the interpretation data

______Pre-test Test Instruction N Mean SD ______Interpretation Pretest SI 31 2.500 .8200

Pretest TESI 31 2.464 .6372

Post 1 SI 31 3.766 1.5465

Post 1 TESI 31 3.714 1.6068

Post 2 SI 31 4.000 1.4142

Post 2 TESI 31 3.8571 1.6035 ______

Table 4.2

Number of subjects, means and standard deviation for the production data

Pre-test Test Instruction N Mean SD ______Production Pretest SI 31 .000 .000

Pretest TESI 31 .000 .000

Post 1 SI 31 2.933 3.894

Post 1 TESI 31 4.178 4.587

Post 2 SI 31 2.700 3.544

Post 2 TESI 31 2.392 3.258 ______

94 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Analysis of Interpretation Data

In order to determine the possible effects of instruction type on the way in which learners interpret sentences containing Spanish preterit, raw scores of the interpretation pre-test and the post-tests were tabulated and a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was performed. Instruction Type (TESI, SI) was the between- subjects factor, whereas Time (pre-test, post-test 1, post-test 2) was the within-subjects factor. The results shown in table 4.3 reveal a significant main effect for time. This indicates that both instruction types had a significant effect on test performance.

However, there was no significant effect for Instruction Type and no significant interaction between Type and Time. This indicates similar improvement for both groups.

A visual representation of the gains from pre-test to post-test 1 and 2 is shown in Figure

4.1.

In order to determine if there was a statistical difference between the results of pre-test 1 and post-test 2 for interpretation tasks, a T-test was calculated in each case.

The comparison between the post-test 1 for the interpretation task revealed a p value of

.94. This means that there was no significant difference between the results of both post- tests 1 for textually enhanced structured input and structured input. Both groups performed equally regarding the interpretation of the Spanish preterit.

The comparison between the post-tests 2 for the interpretation task revealed a p value of .68. This means that there was no significant difference between the results of both post-tests 2 for textually enhanced structured input and structured input. Both groups performed equally regarding the interpretation of the Spanish preterit.

95 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

In summary, there is no significant difference for post-test 1 and post-test 2

regarding the interpretation of the Spanish preterit for textually enhanced structured input

and structured input.

Table 4.3

Summary table for ANOVA using interpretation data

______Source df SS MS F P ______Between-subjects Effects Instruction type 1 .257 .257 .103 .75

Within-subjects Effects Time 2 71.66 35.83 25.61 .00

Instruction type x Time 2 .096 .048 .034 .966

Error (instruction type) 112 156.70 1.399

Error (time) 56 140.28 2.51 ______

96 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Figure 4.1 Interaction Plot for Interpretation data

Interpretation Results

4.50

4.00

s 3.50

e SI r o TESI Sc 3.00

2.50

2.00 Pre-Test Post 1 Post 2

Summary of Interpretation Data

The results of the analysis of the interpretation data demonstrate that both textually enhanced structured input and structured input treatments resulted in knowledge gain. Both TESI and SI had positive effects on how learners interpreted the Spanish preterit. The effects of both textually enhanced structured input and structured input were retained over time. Therefore, the answer to Research Questions 1a and 2a is affirmative.

Both textually enhanced structured input and structured input brought about improved performance on sentence-level tasks involving the interpretation of the Spanish preterit.

However, there was no significant difference between textually enhanced structured input and structured input on interpretation. Therefore, the answer to Research Question 3a is also affirmative. Textually enhanced structured input and structured input did indeed bring about equal effects on interpretation tasks at sentence-level.

97 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Analysis of the Production Data

Raw scores of the production pre-test and post-tests were put into a table and a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was carried out in order to determine the possible effects of instruction type on the way in which learners produce

Spanish preterit. Instruction Type (textually enhanced structured input and structured input) was the between-subjects factor, whereas Time (pre-test, post-test 1 post-test2) was the within-subjects factor. The results shown in table 4.4 reveal a significant main effect for Time. This means that both instruction types had a significant impact on test performance. However, there was no significant effect for instruction Type and no significant interaction between Instruction Type and Time. This means that there was no significant difference between the improvement of the textually enhanced structured input and structured input groups. Figure 4.2 shows the gains from the pre-test and post- tests 1 and 2.

In order to determine if there was a statistical difference between the results of pre-test 1 and post -test 2 for production tasks, a T-test was calculated in each case. The comparison between the post-test 1 for the production task revealed a p value of .18. This means that there was no significant difference between the results of both post-tests 1 for textually enhanced structured input and structured input. Both groups performed equally regarding the production of the Spanish preterit.

The comparison between the post-tests 2 for the production task revealed a p value of .80. This means that there is no significant difference between the results of both post-tests 2 for textually enhanced structured input and structured input. Both groups performed equally regarding the production of the Spanish preterit.

98 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

In summary, there is no significant difference for post-test 1 and post-test 2 regarding the production of the Spanish preterit for textually enhanced structured input and structured input.

Table 4.4

Summary table for ANOVA using production data

______Source df SS MS F P ______Between-subjects Effects Instruction type 1 4.25 4.25 .256 .615

Within-subjects Effects Time 2 389.07 194.54 29.89 .00

Instruction type x Time 2 19.58 9.79 1.51 .227

Error (instruction type) 112 729.01 6.51

Error (time) 56 929.94 2.51 ______

99 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Figure 4.2 Interaction Plot for Production Data

Production Results

4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 s

e 2.50 SI r o 2.00 TESI Sc 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Pre-Test Post 1 Post 2

Summary of Production Data

The results of the analysis of the production data demonstrated that both textually

enhanced structured input and structured input resulted in knowledge gain due to the

treatments. Both textually enhanced structured input and structured input had positive

effects on how learners produced the Spanish preterit. The effects of both textually enhanced structured input and structured input were retained over time. Therefore, the answers to Research Questions 1b and 2b are affirmative. Both textually enhanced structured input and structured input brought about improved performance on sentence- level tasks involving the production of the Spanish preterit. However, there was no significant difference between textually enhanced structured input and structured input on production. Therefore, the answer to Research Question 3b is also affirmative. Textually enhanced structured input and structured input did indeed bring about equal effects on the

100 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

L2 learners’ performance on interpretation and production tasks involving Spanish preterit.

Analysis of the Present Tense Data

A separate analysis of the present tense data was made to examine the possibility of learner overextension of the Spanish preterit. If, after the treatment, learners chose preterit for the items where they should have chosen present tense, this would provide evidence of some overextension.

Table 4.5 provides the means and standard deviation for all subjects on the present tense verb items. This table shows that for the interpretation data, both the textually enhanced structured input and the structured input groups maintained the same level of present tense use from the pretest to post-test 1 and sustained that level of use from post-test 1 to post-test 2. The standard deviations did not increase or decrease dramatically on any of the tests for either group. This indicates that learners maintained the same level of present tense after treatment. In summary, these results indicate that neither textually enhanced structured input nor structured input caused learner overgeneralization of the Spanish preterit.

In order to determine if there was a statistical difference between the results of the pre-test, post-test 1 and post test 2 for interpretation tasks on present tense, a T-test was calculated in each case. The comparison between the pre-test for the interpretation task on the Spanish present tense revealed a p value of .15. This means that there was no significant difference between the results of both pre-tests.

101 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

The comparison of both post-tests 1 for the interpretation task revealed a p value of .85. This means that there was no significant difference between the results of both post-tests 1 for textually enhanced structured input and structured input regarding the

Spanish present tense. Both groups performed equally and there was no evidence of overextension of the Spanish preterit.

The comparison between the post-tests 2 for the interpretation task revealed a p value of .05. This means that there was significant difference between the results of both post-tests 2 for textually enhanced structured input and structured input regarding the

Spanish present. These results suggest that the textually enhanced group tended to overgeneralize the use of the Spanish preterit. As shown in the table 4.6, the structured input group sustained a mean score of 4.612 for the Spanish present tense from the pre- test to the post-test 1, and to the post-test 2. However, the textually enhanced structured input shows some variation. The means for this group fluctuated from 4.161 in the pre- test to 4.677 in the post-test 1, and then they dropped to 3.903 for the post-test 2. This fluctuation of the textually enhanced structured input group tends to suggest that there was overgeneralization of the Spanish past tense.

102 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Table 4.5

Number of subjects, means and standard deviation for the present tense data

Pre-test Test Instruction N Mean SD ______Production Pretest SI 31 4.612 1.054

Pretest TESI 31 4.161 1.368

Post 1 SI 31 4.612 1.282

Post 1 TESI 31 4.677 1.375

Post 2 SI 31 4.612 1.174

Post 2 TESI 31 3.903 1.556 ______

In order to determine the possible effects of instruction type on the way in which learners overextended their use of the present tense Spanish, raw scores using present tense on the interpretation pre-test and post-tests 1 and 2 were tabulated and a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was preformed. The independent variable was Instruction Type, whereas the dependent variable was Time. The results revealed no significant effect for Time. Both groups maintained at least the same level of present tense use. There was no significant effect for Instruction type and no significant interaction between Instruction Type and Time. This means that there was no significant difference between the level of present tense use for the textually enhanced structured input and the structured input groups. In addition, both groups maintained the same level of present tense use after treatment, providing no evidence of overextension of the

Spanish present tense.

103 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Summarizing, both groups performed similarly on the present tense items of the interpretation tasks. Table 4.6 provides a summary of the results of the ANOVA performed using the present tense items on the interpretation tasks. Figure 4.3 shows the interaction plot for present tense data

Table 4.6

Summary table for ANOVA using present tense data

______Source df SS MS F P ______Between-subjects Effects Instruction type 2 4.81 2.40 1.84 .16

Within-subjects Effects Time 2 4.81 2.40 1.84 .16

Instruction type x Time 1 6.21 6.21 2.44 .12

Error (instruction type) 60 152.71 2.54

Error (time) 120 157.032 1.309 ______

104 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Figure 4.3 Interaction Plot for Present Tense Data

Interpretation Results for Present Tense

5.000

4.500

4.000 SI

ores 3.500 c TESI S 3.000

2.500

2.000 Pre-Test Post 1 Post 2

Summary of Analysis of Present Tense

The results of the analysis of learners’ performance on the Spanish present tense items revealed some evidence of overgeneralization of the Spanish preterit for the post- test 2 for the textually enhanced structured input group. Even though learners in both groups had similar results regarding present tense on interpretation tasks, a T-test calculated in each test demonstrated that there was a significant difference between the post-test 2 in the structured input group and the textually enhanced structured input group. Even though the overall results showed no significant difference between treatments, the means in each group revealed a fluctuation for the textually enhanced structured input group, and the T-test revealed significant difference between groups regarding post-test 2.

105 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

CHAPTER 5- DISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter presents a discussion about the results of the concluded experiment.

This discussion has two main goals: to explore whether structured input and textually

enhanced structured input have an impact on the acquisition of the Spanish preterit, and

to determine whether these two instruction types result in differential effects. This

chapter is divided into four sections. The first section discusses the results of the

experiment within the context of the research questions presented in chapter 2two. The

second section presents some conclusions regarding the results of the experiment as well

as its theoretical and pedagogical implications. The third section gives an account of

some limitations of the present experiment and presents some suggestions for future

research. In the fourth section, some final conclusions are presented.

Discussion

The present experiment examined the effects of structured input and textually

enhanced structured input on the acquisition of the Spanish preterit. In particular, this

research design studied whether structured input and textually enhanced structured input would bring about improved performance on sentence-level tasks involving the interpretation and production of the Spanish preterit. In the case that both structured input and textually enhanced structured input brought about improved performance, this research design would explore if both types of instruction resulted in equally-improved performance on both sentence-level interpretation and production tasks involving the

106 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Spanish preterit. The interpretation task and production task were administered as a pre-

test, a post-test and a second post-test, in order to test each hypothesis. The main

objective of the first post-test was to measure the learners’ performance immediately after

instruction. The main objective of the second post-test was to determine the level of retention after two weeks of the treatment. The interpretation test was designed to evaluate the participants’ ability to interpret sentence-level tasks containing the Spanish preterit tense (hypothesis 1 and 2). The production task was designed to evaluate the participants’ ability to produce sentence-level tasks containing the Spanish preterit tense

(Hypothesis 1 and 2).

The results of the present research support hypothesis 1, confirming that structured input would bring about beneficial effects on sentence-level tasks involving interpretation. This hypothesis was based on the results of previous research regarding processing instruction and the positive effects of structured input activities. A solid body of research in this area reveals positive effects for structured input activities from pre-test to post-test on interpretation tasks. The present experiment showed the same results. The group that received structured input activities performed better overall on the interpretation task after treatment, and this improvement was maintained through the second post-test. Structured input activities appear to have altered the learners’ interpretation strategies and this facilitated their understanding of the Spanish preterit tense.

The results of the present study also support hypothesis 1, because they confirmed that structured input would bring about improved performance on sentence-level tasks involving the production of the Spanish preterit tense. This hypothesis was based on

107 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

previous research in which the processing instruction groups and the structured input

groups made significant improvements on production tasks. In the present study, the

structured input group improved significantly after treatment, and this improvement was

held through post-test 2. The structured input group seems to have received what they

needed to improve on the production tasks. The structured input group and the textually enhanced structured input group completed only structured input activities, and they did not receive any explicit information about the targeted form. These groups did not complete any production task. However, they were able to complete production tests

successfully, obtaining significant gains on the production of the Spanish preterit. Both

treatments, with no explicit information added, were sufficient to cause significant

improvement on output-based tasks. These results are important because they show that

input practice has an impact on production. It is also important to point out that neither

treatment group received explicit information about the grammar point in question, and

the learners were able to interpret successfully and produce sentence-level tasks

containing the Spanish preterit tense.

The results of the present study support hypothesis 2, confirming that textually

enhanced structured input would bring about improved performance in sentence-level

tasks involving the interpretation of the Spanish preterit. This hypothesis was based on

the results of previous research on textual enhancement, and on a pilot study (Farley,

Peart, & Enns, 2008) developed prior to this experiment, in which the group that received

textually enhanced structured input improved from pre-test to post-test on interpretation

tasks. The present experiment demonstrated the same results. The group that received

textually enhanced structured input was able to perform better on the interpretation task

108 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 after treatment and their improved performance was maintained through the second post- test. Textually enhanced structured input seemed to have heightened the targeted forms and altered the learners’ interpretation strategies enabling them to interpret the Spanish preterit tense better.

The results of the present study also support hypothesis 2, because they confirm that textually enhanced structured input brings about improved performance on sentence- level tasks involving the production of the Spanish preterit. This hypothesis originated from previous research in which the textually enhanced group made improvements in production at sentence-level tasks. This hypothesis also was based on the pilot study

(Farley, Peart, & Enns, 2008) developed prior to this experiment where the textually enhanced group improved on the production of the French imparfait at sentence-level tasks, and that improvement was maintained through post-test 2.

The results of this study do not support hypothesis 3, which stated that textually enhanced structured input brings about greater overall improvement than structured input alone in production tasks involving the Spanish preterit. This hypothesis was based on the results obtained by Wong (2002) and on the pilot study (Farley, Peart, & Enns, 2008), where the textually enhanced structured input group out-performed the structured input group regarding the production of the French imparfait. However, the results of the present study revealed no significant difference between textually enhanced structured input and structured input after treatment regarding the production task. Although instruction type did not have an effect on learners’ performance, the present study does reveal that textually enhanced structured input had a positive impact on both the learners’ ability to produce and to interpret the Spanish preterit. Textually enhanced structured

109 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 input had a beneficial effect on the way in which the learners processed the input, and this led to improvement in production as well. Even though this group did not have any practice producing the Spanish preterit and did not receive any explicit information, they were able to produce the Spanish preterit successfully. This group was able to produce the Spanish preterit better than before instruction, and their improvement was maintained through post-test 2.

The results of the present study do support hypothesis 3, which states that textually enhanced structured input would bring about equally-improved performance on sentence-level tasks involving the interpretation of the Spanish preterit. This hypothesis was consistent with the results of previous research on structured input. The results of the present study revealed no significant difference in improvement after treatment between the textually enhanced structured input and the structured input alone on the interpretation task.

In summary, the statistical analyses for the interpretation test and the production test do not reveal a significant difference between the textually enhanced structured input group and the structured input group. The results of the present study differ from those of previous research on textual enhancement (Wong, 2002), where textually enhanced input had a positive impact on sentence-level tasks. Furthermore, the pilot study (Farley, Peart,

& Enns, 2008) developed prior to the present experiment revealed significant effects on production at sentence-level tasks. The results of the present study, in fact, directly contradicted those previous results (Wong, 2002; Farley, Peart, & Enns, 2008) and revealed that structured input and textually structured input had very similar effects on how learners interpret and produce the Spanish preterit. The discussion now turns to a

110 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

reasonable explanation for why the textually enhanced structured input and the structured

input group in this experiment performed similarly and why the present results differ

from previous studies.

One possible explanation lies in the differences between the present study and the

pilot. The Spanish pilot was developed during a summer term, and the present study was

carried out during a regular semester. During the semester, a regular class period is 50-

minutes long, while during a summer term, classes are longer and more intense. During

the summer, classes met one hour and a half every day, while during the semester, classes

met three times a week for 50 minutes. This fact may have had an influence on the

intensity of the treatment. It may be the case that with a longer and more intense

treatment the results could be different from those presented in this study, where the

textually enhanced structured input group could out-performed the structured input group

in the production of the Spanish past tense. The French pilot study was developed during

a regular semester. However, the target form was the imparfait, which would be the

imperfect in Spanish, not the Spanish preterit. The grammar point in the French pilot was

different also, the data pool for the French pilot was relatively small with an n size of 33

subjects compared with the data pool of this present study with and n size of 62 subjects.

This fact may have had an impact on the results obtained in this present study.

A second possible explanation is that the populations of students who take classes over a regular semester and over the summer are different, and that might have had an impact on the results of the pilot. The present study was carried out during a regular semester, where most of the students are freshmen or sophomores, while during the summer most of the students are juniors or seniors. This difference in the population

111 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

might also have had an impact on the results of both studies. Even though the data pool in

each of the experiments was not exposed to the Spanish preterit previously, during or

after the treatment and second post-test, the students had different backgrounds which

could have had an impact on the results of this study.

A third possible explanation is that the Spanish pilot study was carried out in

courses of second-semester Spanish. The present study was carried out in lower-level,

first-semester Spanish classes where students are only exposed to different forms of the

present tense. The change of levels might have had an impact on the results of the

experiment. During the first semester, students are exposed to the Spanish language for

the first time in many cases, whereas during the second semester they already have some

experience with the study of a foreign language.

The results of this study reveal that apparently structured input alone was

sufficient to foster form-meaning connections and to lead learners to notice and to

process the Spanish preterit. This study provides further evidence that structured input

alone, without enhancement or explanation, is sufficient to foster successful form-

meaning connections.

Implications

The results of this experiment hold not only theoretical implications, but also

pedagogical implications. From a theoretical perspective, this study provides evidence to

support the idea that structured input and textually enhanced input can impact second

language acquisition in a positive manner. Both groups had no exposure to output tasks during treatment, however, both showed improvement over time in production tasks

112 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 involving the Spanish preterit. The results of the present study add to the body on research of textual enhancement and structured input showing that both types of input instruction improved over time involving interpretation and production of the Spanish preterit with no grammatical explanation. The results of these two input-based instructions add to the body of research of VanPatten’s model of second language input processing (VanPatten, 1996, 2003, 2004) in that they show that structured input activities affect the developing system via intake which can be accessed by the learner for production, under certain circumstances. This present study further emphasizes taking into account the sentence location principle, and that the sentence location principle is sufficient to bring about noticing the targeted form for subsequent processing.

The present study adds to the body of research on textual enhancement at sentence-level tasks. The results provide evidence that the textually enhanced structured input group improved over time in both interpretation and production tasks. In both groups, learners gained improvement in production and interpretation of the Spanish preterit. This improvement heightens the importance of input for second language acquisition, especially the type of input that is organized in order to alter the learner’s processing strategies.

However, the importance of the results for the textually enhanced structured input group directly contradicts the results of previous research (see Wong, 2002; Farley, Peart,

& Enns, 2008) where textual enhancement obtained significant improvement on production at sentence-level tasks. The results of the present study indicate that more research needs to be done regarding textual enhancement in order to draw more definite conclusions. It may be the case that the same treatment (textually enhanced structured

113 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 input) applied to a different grammar point could yield different results. Also, it would be interesting to explore the effect of textually enhanced structured input on the first-noun principle. It might be the case that the results of each study would be different from those presented here.

The results of the present study also add to the body of research on input with no explicit information. The results of this study serve to stress that grammatical explanation might not be necessary for the learner to process the targeted forms. In both cases the groups involved in this experiment received no grammatical explanation, and they yet were able to improve over time regarding interpretation and production of the Spanish preterit. The results of the textually enhanced structured input and structured input groups add more evidence to the body of research (VanPatten & Oikenon, 1996) that states that when done correctly, structured input activities alone are sufficient to help learners make correct form-meaning connections. These results, however do not mean that explicit instruction should not be used with structured input or in the context of the classroom.

Some learners are used to seeing this type of information and may like to have it even if it is not necessary. However, it is important to remember that is the way the input is rearranged in the activity what will push the learner to make the correct form-meaning connections, not the explicit information.

Finally, the results of the present study carry implications concerning the combination of two focus-on-form techniques. These results show that apparently one is more effective than the other. The structured input instruction alone was sufficient to facilitate form-meaning connections, at least as shown in the results of the present study.

One explanation of these results is that structured input activities are rooted in

114 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 psycholinguistics principles of input processing. These principles are supported by a large body of research.

On the other hand, textual enhancement is more of an instructional technique rooted in a common classroom practice. The body of research done in this area has yielded mixed results and has not been explored as much as the other input enhancement technique. Even though both have been shown to be effective, textual enhancement did not heighten the effects of structured input in this particular study. More experimentation needs to be done in this vein of research to arrive at a more certain conclusion about the effectiveness of these two focus-on-form techniques used together.

Limitations and Further Research

There are many limitations to the present study. One limitation of the present experiment is, for example, the subject pool. All participants were taken from a first semester Spanish course at the same university. Therefore, all students were products of the same teaching environment. All progressed through the same basic language program. The type of formal instruction in Spanish that the subjects had received was very similar, except for their varying exposures to Spanish at the high-school level. In summary, this study cannot address the effects that textually enhanced structured input and structured input might have on learners of Spanish in a higher-level or lower-level course, or learners with a significantly different type of experience with Spanish. Further experimentation is needed with a different subject pool, and with subjects at different levels of proficiency.

115 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

The duration of instructional effects was measured over a period of two weeks,

which constitutes a second limitation for the present study. The longer-term effects of textually enhanced structured input and structured input on the acquisition of the Spanish preterit remain to be investigated. More experimentation for a longer period of time is needed in order to arrive at definite conclusions about the effects of textual enhancement and its combination with structured input.

A third methodological limitation is that the participants were only required to produce the Spanish preterit form and basically to write a complete sentence using the preterit. The results in no way provide implications for spontaneous language production.

In other words, from this study it cannot be concluded that textually enhanced structured

input and structured input would result in improved performance during real-time

language production. Further experimentation with different types of assessment is

required in order to achieve a more definite conclusion.

A fourth methodological limitation is that the design of the study was constrained

by the curricula of the current course where this study took place. Basically four class

periods were devoted to this experimentation. This study constituted a deviation from the

current curricula at the time. A longer treatment, with more activities and more class

periods, could have yielded different results. However, it is difficult to develop such an

experiment along with current curricula. A longer and more intense treatment means

more time taken away from the “normal” development of themes and topics in the regular

curricula.

Further research is also required to comprehend what factors may have

contributed to the results of this study where there was no difference between treatments.

116 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

However, textual enhanced structured input out-performed structured input alone on the production of the French imparfait during the pilot study. Further experimentation in this vein of research is needed to arrive at more certain conclusions, for example using a different grammar point, a different pool of subjects or taking into account the first noun principle which was not used for this study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of this dissertation are positive not only for second language research, but also for foreign language instruction. The results indicate that both textually enhanced structured input and structured input had positive effects on how learners interpret and produce the Spanish preterit with no grammatical explanation. In addition, neither instruction type resulted in overextension of the Spanish preterit, but rather learners maintained a similar level of present use after treatment. Finally, the performance of the textually enhanced structured input group and the structured input group were similar in every respect. To this respect, it is important to note that the structured input group maintained the exact same means regarding the use of present tense from the pre-test towards the post-test 1 and this value remained the same until the post-test 2. The textually enhanced structured input group did show some fluctuation in the means regarding the use of present tense.

The role of grammatical explanation remains a point of discussion in language teaching. A number of contemporary studies on second language acquisition provide evidence that grammatical explanation is not needed for the target form to be processed.

However, further investigation needs to be conducted regarding this matter. The results of

117 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

this study are easily applied to traditional classroom settings, where usually long

grammatical explanations take place. This study shows that with no grammatical

explanation about the target form, the learners are able not only to interpret, but also to

produce the Spanish preterit. These results show once more how structured input

activities alone can foster form-meaning connections which lead to more effective

processing strategies.

Most of the research developed regarding textual enhancement has revealed

mixed results. Most of these studies used textual enhancement at discourse-level except

for Wong (2002), who obtained positive effects for textual enhancement at sentence-level

tasks. On the other hand, structured input activities have proven to be effective when

compared with other types of instruction. The effectiveness of the combination of these

two focus-on-form techniques needs more experimentation in order to draw more definite conclusions.

The first goal of this experiment was to evaluate the effects of textual enhancement at sentence-level tasks. The results of this experiment revealed that textual enhancement is effective at sentence-level tasks presenting positive results for interpretation and production of the Spanish preterit. The second goal of this experiment was to evaluate whether the beneficial effects of structured input were heightened by textual enhancement. This study revels that both focus-on form techniques combined have the same effect as structured input alone. Further investigations need to be developed in this vein of research in order to arrive at more definite conclusions.

Finally, this experiment evaluated two input-based instructions with no explicit information involved. The results of this experiment revealed that over time both groups

118 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 improved on the interpretation and the production of the Spanish preterit under those conditions.

119 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

REFERENCES

Alanen, R. (1995). Input Enhancement and rule presentation in second language

acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language

acquisition (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Allen, Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E.

Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp.

173- 218). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B.,

MacWhinney, & E. Bates, (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence

processing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of Processing Instruction and

Output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language

Teaching Research, 5, 95-127.

Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on

the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing

Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 207- 225). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from processing perspective: An investigation

into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.

120 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching ad learning.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cheng, A. (1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: The acquisition of Spanish

ser and estar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana

Champaign, Urbana, IL.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the

classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 11, 305-328.

Farley, A. (2001a). Authentic processing instruction and meaning-based output

instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289-299.

Farley, A. (2001b). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A

comparative study. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5, 57–93.

Farley, A. (2004a). Processing Instruction and Meaning-based Output instruction. In B.

VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp.

143- 168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

121 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Farley, A. (2004b). Processing Instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit

information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory,

Research, and Commentary (pp. 227- 240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Farley, A. (2005). Structured Input. Grammar instruction for the acquisition-Oriented

Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Farley, A., Peart, S., & Enns, E., (2008). Structured Input and Textual Enhancement:

Impacts on L2 Production in Spanish and French. In C. Blythe (Ed.), AAUSC

Volume: L2 Grammar, UT Austin.

Frey, H. (1988). The applied linguistics of teacher talk. Hispania, 71, 681-86.

Gass, S., and L. Selinker (2001). Second language acquisition. (2nd Ed.), Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Gascoigne, C. (2006a). Toward an understanding of input enhancement in computerized

L2 environments. CALICO Journal, 147-162.

Gascoigne, C. (2006b). Explicit Input Enhancement: the Effects on Target and Non-target

Aspects of Second Language Acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 551-

564.

Grove, C. (1999). Focusing on form in the communicative classroom: an output-centered

model of instruction for oral skills development. Hispania, 82, 538-50.

Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In R. Andersen

(Ed.), Second language acquisition as language acquisition (pp.64-86).

Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

122 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies in SLA in early French immersion. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245-260.

Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its

implication for second language teaching. In A. Davis, C. Criper, & A. Howatt

(Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 1–36.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An

experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 24, 541–577.

Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual

enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),

Attention and awareness in second language learning (pp. 183-216). Honolulu:

University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Krasehn, S. (1982). Principle and practice in second language acquisition. New York:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the

classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.

Larsen-Freemnan, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language

acquisition research. New York: Longman.

Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen

(2nd Ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.

123 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative

evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 37–63.

Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’

comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language

learning, 8, 151-182.

Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced form while interacting with the L2? An

online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 Reading.

Hispania, 84, 496-509.

Leow, R. (1998). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2

development in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 49-68.

Leow, R. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware

versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22, 557–84.

Leow, R., Egi, T., Nuevo, A., & Tsai, Y. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and

type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied

Language Learning 13, 93–108.

Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional

sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented

research in second language acquisition (pp. 217-243). Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N., (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

124 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in

second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp.115-141). Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction makes a difference? A review of

research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.

In W.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition:

Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–68). New York: Academic.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical

study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,

557–87.

Mackey, A,. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language

development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal,

82, 338–56.

Mackey, A. (2004). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning.

Unpublished manuscript, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in

working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P.

Robinson (Ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning (pp.

181–209). Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11,

43–63.

125 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner

attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229-258.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What dos it reveal on second language learning

conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language learning, 44: 493-527.

Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension.

TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737-58.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching

(2nd Ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, W. (1987). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Robinson, P. (1995a). Review article: Attention, memory and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis.

Language Learning, 45, 283–331.

Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long

(Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 631–78). Oxford:

Blackwell.

Rosa, E. and O’Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness:

Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–56.

Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M., (1985). Consciousness raising and universal

grammar. Applied linguistics, 6, 274-282.

Savignon, S. (1998). Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

linguistics, 11, 129-158.

126 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for

applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11: 11-26.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language

Instruction (pp. 3–32). UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–26.

Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data affecting competence and linguistic

behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner.

Applied linguistics, 2, 159-168.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different

types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language researcher, 7,

118-132.

Shook, J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake

phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93.

Simard, D. (2001). Effet de la mise en évidence textuelle sur l’acquisition de différente

marques du pluriel en anglais langue seconde auprès de jeunes francophones de

première secondaire. Doctoral dissertation, Université Laval, Québec.

Simard, D. and Wong, W. (2001). Alertness, orientation, and detection. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 23, 103–24.

Spada, N. (1997). The relationship between instructional differences and learning

outcomes: A process-product in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.),

127 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence and

developmental readiness in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 83, 1-22.

Swain, M. (1985). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough.

Canadian Modern Language Review, 50,158-64.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, &

B. Seidlhofer (Ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-44).

Oxford University Press.

Swain, M (1993). The output hypothesis. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-

164.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J.

Williams, (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.

64-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive process they

generate. A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-

91.

Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach.

Modern Language Journal, 75, 52-63.

Terrell, T. et al. (1994). Instructors’ manual to accompany Dos Mundos, (3rd Ed.), New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Tomlin, R. and Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language

acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 183–203.

128 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second

Language Research, 14, 103–35.

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition:

A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.

VanPatten, B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing

instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2002). Communicative classroom, processing instruction, and

pedagogical norms. In Gass, S. et. al. (Eds.), Pedagogical norms for second and

foreign language learning and teaching: Studies in honor of Albert Valdman (pp.

105-118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language

acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

VanPatten, B, & Wong, W. (2004). Processing Instruction and the French causative: A

replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and

Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

White, J (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: a typographical input enhancement study.

In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second Language

Acquisition (pp.85-113). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

129 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Wing, B. (1987). The linguistic and communicative functions of foreign language teacher

talk. In B. VanPatten et al. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research

perspective (pp.158-73). Cambridge, MA: Newburry House.

Wong, W. (2002b). Decreasing attention demands in input processing: a textual

enhancement study. In E. Lee and B. VanPatten (Ed.), Input enhancement. From

Theory and research to classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wong, W. (2003). Textual Enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2

comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied

Language Learning, 13, 109-132.

Wong, W. (2004). Processing Instruction in French: the roles of explicit information and

structured input. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory,

Research, and Commentary (pp. 187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement. From theory and research to the classroom. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Wong Filmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S. Gass, & C.

Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 17-50). Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

130 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

APPENDIX A

Instructional Materials

Structured Input

131 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Day 1

132 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity A: George w. Bush- Governor or President?

The phrases below come from a magazine article about George W. Bush. Indicate whether the statements are referring to his past life as a governor or his present life as President of the Unites States. Circle the correct time reference.

1- leyó documentos confidenciales.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

2- escribe leyes.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

3- influyó al público.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

4- fundó organizaciones importantes.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

5- dice cosas cómicas.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

133 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity B: The Life and Times of Ozzy Osborne- Then and Now.

The phrases below come from a website about Ozzy Osborne, the popular singer of Black Sabbath. Indicate whether these statements are referring to his past life or his present life. Circle the phrase that correctly fits with each statement.

1- cantó en muchos conciertos.

a. Ahora b. En el pasado

2- tiene un programa en la tele.

a. Hace años b. Actualmente

3- viajó por el mundo.

a. Cuando joven b. Ahora

4- bebió mucho alcohol.

a. Con Black Sabbath b. Ahora

5- vive con su familia.

a. De niño b. Hoy día

134 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity C: Oprah Winfrey: Now and Then.

A recent article in a magazine summarized the life and contributions of Oprah Winfrey. Below are a few excerpts from the article. Indicate whether each is referring to her past or her present life.

1- Vivió en Baltimore.

a. Ahora b. Hace años

2- Tiene un programa de T. V. famoso.

a. Hace años b. Ahora

3- Fundó organizaciones para niños.

a. En el presente b. Hace años

4-Actuó en el cine.

a. Cuando era joven b. Actualmente

5-Influye en muchas mujeres.

a. En el presente b. En el pasado

135 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity D: Your Roommate’s Life

What kind of year did your best friend have? Read the following phrases and check those activities that you think he/she probably did or did not do.

Probable Improbable

1- trabajó en un restaurante. ______

2- escribió poemas. ______

3- se hizo miembro de una fraternidad. ______

4- manejó una motocicleta. ______

5- leyó el diario regularmente. ______

136 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity E: Your Instructor’s Weekend

How was last weekend for your instructor? Listen to each description of his/her weekend and check those activities that you think he/she did.

SI NO

1- viajó a otra ciudad. ______

2- trabajó mucho. ______

3- durmió muy poco. ______

4- ayudó a un amigo. ______

5- comió comida china. ______

137 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity F: Martin Luther King Jr.

You probably know about Martin Luther King and his fight for civil rights. Below there are some statements about his life. Indicate below whether those statements are Cierto (C), Falso (F), or Don’t Know (No sé)

C F No sé

1- fue un héroe de los derechos civiles. ______

2- vivió en México. ______

3- actuó en el cine. ______

4- habló en público. ______

5- tuvo el Premio Novel de la paz. ______

138 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Day 2

139 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity G: Madonna- Young and Old.

A recent article in a pop culture magazine summarized the life and contributions of Madonna to pop culture. Below there are a few excerpts from the article. Indicate whether is referring to earlier times or her life today.

1- escribe cuentos para niños.

a. En 1985 b. Hoy día

2- actuó en el cine.

a. En los 80s b. Actualmente

3- viajó a la Argentina.

a. Hace años b. Ahora

4- lee cuentos a sus hijos.

a. Regularmente b. En 1985

5- fue bailarina.

a. En los 70s b. Actualmente

140 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity H: Hillary Rodham Clinton - First Lady or Senator?

Listen to each statement made about the life of Hillary Clinton and decide whether is referring to her past life as First Lady or her present life as a New York senator. Circle the correct time reference.

1- vivió con Bill.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

2- trabaja en el capitolio.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

3- viaja con frecuencia.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

4- fundó organizaciones humanitarias.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

5- escribió algunos libros.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

141 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity I: Jennifer Aniston: Before or After?

The phrases below come from a magazine article about Jennifer Aniston. Indicate whether the statements are referring to her past years or her present life.

1- Actuó en un programa de T. V. famoso.

a. El año pasado b. Ahora

2- Fue a lugares exóticos.

a. Ahora b. Hace años

3- Vive en Los Ángeles.

a. Actualmente b. Cuando joven.

4- Maneja un carro último modelo.

a. Regularmente b. El año pasado.

5- Tuvo problemas con su pareja.

a. El año pasado b. Ahora

142 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity J: Chris Farley’s life.

You probably know a little about the late comedian Chris Farley. Below there are some statements about his life as an actor. Indicate whether you believe each statement is Cierto (C) or Falso (F). C o F

1- actuó en la tele. ______

2- fue muy serio. ______

3- fumó sustancias ilegales. ______

4- cantó bien. ______

5- influyó en muchos jóvenes. ______

143 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity K: La Madre Teresa de Calcuta.

You probably know a little about Mother Teresa. Below there are some statements about her life. Indicate whether you believe each statement is probable or improbable.

Probable Improbable

1- tuvo un hijo. ______

2- vivió con los pobres. ______

3- escribió muchos libros. ______

4- fundó una congregación. ______

5- comió en restaurantes caros. ______

144 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity L: Your Best Friend’s Life

What kind of life has your best friend had? Read the following phrases and indicate those activities that you think he/she probably has done once, more than once, or never.

Nunca Una vez Muchas veces

1- fumó un cigarrillo. ______

2- bebió mucho. ______

3- fue a la cárcel. ______

4- cantó en un concierto. ______

5- hizo algo ilegal. ______

145 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

APPENDIX B

Instructional Materials

Textually Enhanced Structured Input

146 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Day 1

147 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity A: George w. Bush- Governor or President?

The phrases below come from a magazine article about George W. Bush. Indicate whether the statements are referring to his past life as a governor or his present life as President of the Unites States. Circle the correct time reference.

1- leyó documentos confidenciales.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

2- escribe leyes.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

3- influyó al público.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

4- fundó organizaciones importantes.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

5- dice cosas cómicas.

a. Gobernador b. Presidente

148 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity B: The Life and Times of Ozzy Osborne- Then and Now.

The phrases below come from a website about Ozzy Osborne, the popular singer of Black Sabbath. Indicate whether these statements are referring to his past life or his present life. Circle the phrase that correctly fits with each statement.

1- cantó en muchos conciertos.

a. Ahora b. En el pasado

2- tiene un programa en la tele.

a. Hace años b. Actualmente

3- viajó por el mundo.

a. Cuando joven b. Ahora

4- bebió mucho alcohol.

a. Con Black Sabbath b. Ahora

5- vive con su familia.

a. De niño b. Hoy día

149 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity C: Oprah Winfrey: Now and Then.

A recent article in a magazine summarized the life and contributions of Oprah Winfrey. Below are a few excerpts from the article. Indicate whether each is referring to her past or her present life.

1- vivió en Baltimore.

a. Ahora b. Hace años

2- tiene un programa de T. V. famoso.

a. Hace años b. Ahora

3- fundó organizaciones para niños.

a. En el presente b. Hace años

4-actuó en el cine.

a. Cuando era joven b. Actualmente

5-influye en muchas mujeres.

a. En el presente b. En el pasado

150 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity D: Your Roommate’s Life

What kind of year did your best friend have? Read the following phrases and check those activities that you think he/she probably did or did not do.

Probable Improbable

1- trabajó en un restaurante. ______

2- escribió poemas. ______

3- se hizo miembro de una fraternidad. ______

4- manejó una motocicleta. ______

5- leyó el diario regularmente. ______

151 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity E: Your Instructor’s Weekend

How was last weekend for your instructor? Listen to each description of his/her weekend and check those activities that you think he/she did.

SI NO

1- viajó a otra ciudad. ______

2- trabajó mucho. ______

3- durmió muy poco. ______

4- ayudó a un amigo. ______

5- comió comida china. ______

152 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity F: Martin Luther King Jr.

You probably know about Martin Luther King and his fight for civil rights. Below there are some statements about his life. Indicate below whether those statements are Cierto (C), Falso (F), or Don’t Know (No sé)

C F No sé

1- fue un héroe de los derechos civiles. ______

2- vivió en México. ______

3- actuó en el cine. ______

4- habló en público. ______

5- tuvo el Premio Novel de la paz. ______

153 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Day 2

154 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity G: Madonna- Young and Old.

A recent article in a pop culture magazine summarized the life and contributions of Madonna to pop culture. Below there are a few excerpts from the article. Indicate whether each is referring to earlier times or her life today.

1- escribe cuentos para niños.

a. En 1985 b. Hoy día

2- actuó en el cine.

a. En los 80s b. Actualmente

3- viajó a la Argentina.

a. Hace años b. Ahora

4- lee cuentos a sus hijos.

a. Regularmente b. En 1985

5- fue bailarina.

a. En los 70s b. Actualmente

155 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity H: Hillary Rodham Clinton - First Lady or Senator?

Listen to each statement made about the life of Hillary Clinton and decide whether is referring to her past life as First Lady or her present life as a New York senator. Circle the correct time reference.

1- vivió con Bill.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

2- trabaja en el capitolio.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

3- viaja con frecuencia.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

4- fundó organizaciones humanitarias.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

5- escribió algunos libros.

a. Primera dama b. Senadora

156 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity I: Jennifer Aniston: Before or After?

The phrases below come from a magazine article about Jennifer Aniston. Indicate whether the statements are referring to her past years or her present life.

1- actuó en un programa de T. V. famoso.

a. El año pasado b. Ahora

2- fue a lugares exóticos.

a. Ahora b. Hace años

3- vive en Los Ángeles.

a. Actualmente b. Cuando joven.

4- maneja un carro último modelo.

a. Regularmente b. El año pasado.

5- tuvo problemas con su pareja.

a. El año pasado b. Ahora

157 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity J: Chris Farley’s life.

You probably know a little about the late comedian Chris Farley. Below there are some statements about his life as an actor. Indicate whether you believe each statement is Cierto (C) or Falso (F). C o F

1- actuó en la tele. ______

2- fue muy serio. ______

3- fumó sustancias ilegales. ______

4- cantó bien. ______

5- influyó en muchos jóvenes. ______

158 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity K: La Madre Teresa de Calcuta.

You probably know a little about Mother Teresa. Below there are some statements about her life. Indicate whether you believe each statement is probable or improbable.

Probable Improbable

1- tuvo un hijo. ______

2- vivió con los pobres. ______

3- escribió muchos libros. ______

4- fundó una congregación. ______

5- comió en restaurantes caros. ______

159 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Activity L: Your Best Friend’s Life

What kind of life has your best friend had? Read the following phrases and indicate those activities that you think he/she probably has done once, or more than once, or never

Nunca Una vez Muchas veces

1- fumó un cigarrillo. ______

2- bebió hasta emborracharse (drunk). ______

3- fue a la cárcel. ______

4- cantó en un concierto. ______

5- hizo algo ilegal. ______

160 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

APPENDIX C

Assessment Materials

161 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Interpretation Test # A: El estudiante típico de Texas Tech….

What do typical students at Texas Tech do every day at the university? Read the following statements and choose the best answer.

1- Juana no toma a. la puerta b. la justicia c. not a or b

2- A Estela no le gustan a. la casa b. los perros c. not a or b

3- Pedro lee el periódico a. todos los días b. el fin de semana pasado c. not a or b

4- José viaja a su casa a. regularmente b. ayer c. not a or b

5- Miguel habló con un amigo a. el fin de semana pasado b. Actualmente c. not a or b

6- A ustedes les gustan a. la carne b. el pescado c. not a or b

7- Jorge bebió mucho a. ahora b. el fin de semana pasado c. not a or b

8- Joaquín durmió poco a. la semana pasada b. actualmente c. not a or b

9- La hermana de Ana actúa bien a. normalmente b. el año pasado c. not a or b

10. A Juan le gusta mucho a. andando b. andar c. not a or b

162 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

11- Alejandro trabajó en una tienda a. ahora b. la semana pasada c. not a or b

12- Ramón no llamó a a. actualmente b. ayer c. not a or b

13- Rosa siempre hace la tarea a. regularmente b. el año pasado c. not a or b

14- María vive en la residencia a. normalmente b. el fin de semana pasado c. not a or b

15- René comió en el UC a. regularmente b. el mes pasado c. not a or b

16- Hilda escribe a. cocinas b. poemas c. not a or b

17- Dora es buena estudiante a. normalmente b. ayer c. not a or b

18- Paula dijo algo malo a. regularmente b. el mes pasado c. not a or b

163 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Interpretation Test # B: El instructor de español típico en Texas Tech…….

What do typical instructors at Texas Tech do every day? Read the following statements and choose the best answer.

1- Pedro no llamó por a. teléfono b. puerta c. not a or b

2- Elvira es buena instructora a. el año pasado b. generalmente c. not a or b

3- A Ernesto le gusta a. comiendo b. comer c. not a or b

4- Teresa vivió unos meses en España a. normalmente b. el verano pasado c. not a or b

5- Juan tiene muchos amigos a. el año pasado b. regularmente c. not a or b

6- Edgar no habló con a. la casa b. la cama c. not a or b

7- Alberto leyó muchos libros en español a. actualmente b. el mes pasado c. not a or b

8- María viajó a México con el programa de Tech a. el semestre pasado b. generalmente c. not a or b

9- El Dr. Salazar influye en los estudiantes a. el año pasado b. regularmente c. not a or b

10- Carmen lava a. los platos b. la tele c. not a or b

164 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

11- Oscar funda organizaciones para aprender español a. actualmente b. el mes pasado c. not a or b

12- Ramón no habló con a. el carro b. el libro c. not a or b

13- Amelia actuó en una obra de teatro a. ahora b. el año pasado c. not a or b

14- Arturo maneja muy rápido a. generalmente b. en el pasado c. not a or b

15- Fernando escribe muy bien en español a. cuando joven b. normalmente c. not a or b

16- A Pedro no le gusta a. los perros b. los restaurantes c. not a or b

17- Ana hizo cosas ilegales a. actualmente b. cuando joven c. not a or b

18- Julio ayudó a su familia a. hace años b. actualmente c. not a or b

165 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Interpretation Test # C: La mujer profesional en América…….

What do typical professional women do every day? Read the following statement about her and decide on the best answer.

1- Laura no llama a a. la flor b. el carro c. not a or b

2- Elvira habla por teléfono a. todos los días b. el fin de semana pasado c. not a or b

3- A Beatriz no le gusta a. las cervezas b. los aviones c. not a or b

4- Daniela bebe refresco de dieta a. en el pasado b. generalmente c. not a or b

5- Cristina fue una buena estudiante a. ahora b. cuando joven c. not a or b

6- Gabriela lee a. los vasos b. las tazas c. not a or b

7- Olga manejó un carro último modelo a. actualmente b. cuando joven c. not a or b

8-Juana duerme pocas horas a. regularmente b. el año pasado c. not a or b

9-Natalia tuvo varios novios a. ahora b. cuando joven c. not a or b

10- Ana no bebió a. los lápices b. los bolígrafos c. not a or b

166 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

11- Federica trabaja mucho a. regularmente b. en el pasado c. not a or b

12- Catalina no influyó en a. el baño b. hoy c. not a or b

13- Juana come comida sana a. el año pasado b. todos los días c. not a or b

14- Elvira dice cosas cómicas a. normalmente b. cuando niña c. not a or b

15- Antonia fundó organizaciones feministas a. actualmente b. el año pasado c. not a or b

16- Liliana come a. las mesas b. las computadoras c. not a or b

17- Carla cantó en la ducha a. ahora b. el fin de semana pasado c. not a or b

18-Paula fumó substancias ilegales a. en el pasado b. ahora c. not a or b

167 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Production Test # A: La semana pasada del estudiante típico...

Intructions: Write 6 things about what the typical student at Texas Tech did last week. ir tener manejar fumar bailar (to dance) escribir

1-______

2-______

3-______

4-______

5-______

6-______

168 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Production Test # B: Las vacaciones pasadas del instructor de español.

Intructions: Write 6 things about what the typical Spanish instructor at Texas Tech did during this past Spring Break.

hablar trabajar beber comer caminar (to walk) dormir

1-______

2- ______

3- ______

4- ______

5-______

6- ______

169 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Production Test # C: La semana pasada de Martha Stewart

Instructions: Write 6 things about Martha Stewart and her actions last week.

leer hacer viajar vivir cocinar (to cook) ayudar

1-______

2- ______

3- ______

4- ______

5-______

6-______

170 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

APENDIX D

Background Survey

171 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Background Questionnaire: the information requested below will be used solely for means of data collection. All information will remain confidential.

Name: ______

Class: Fresh Soph Jun Sen Grad

Major: ______

Spanish Courses taken at TTU: 1501(South Plains) 1502 (South Plains) 1507 1501 on-line 1502 on-line Estimated GPA: ______

Estimated grade in this Spanish course ______

Previous study of Spanish in another college: NO YES (If yes, ______semesters)

Previous study of Spanish in high school: NO YES (If yes, ______semesters)

Other contact with Spanish:

(friends, family, travel, etc..) ______

Study of other languages: NO YES

____ French ____ Italian ____ German ____ Other? ______

How long? ______semesters.

Do you speak English with your family at home? YES NO

If not, please specify the language(s): ______

Do you have any difficulty hearing? YES NO

Do you have any difficulty reading? YES NO

AS the experimenter explained, students should not seek any outside information or practice during the two weeks of experimentation. During the last two weeks, did you seek any outside information or practice on past tense? YES NO

If yes, please explain:______

172 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

APENDIX E

Guidelines for instructors

173 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

DAY ONE: INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEACHER

CHECKLIST:

***** DO YOU HAVE YOUR PACKET FOR DAY ONE?

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Be sure to wait at least 3-4 additional minutes after class begins in order to

insure that as many students as possible can be counted in the study.

2. Begin class by reading the statement below to the students:

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “Thank you for participating in this extra credit study. This study will take place over four different class days during this term. Your participation on all four days is necessary in order to earn the extra credit. You are not obligated to do the extra credit study. If you opt to not participate, other replacement writing assignments will be assigned in order to compensate for class time. If you do prefer to join in on this study, keep in mind that the material covered is normal material for this class and the activities you will complete will prepare you for the upcoming semester and doing well in the course in general. Again, thank you for participating in this study.”

1. Distribute the learning styles test and separate answer sheet to each participant.

2. Tell them to be sure to put their NAME and SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER on

the answer sheet.

**IMPORTANT** - must have name and social to process answers!!!

3. Tell them to read the instructions.

4. Tell them they should write a 0, 1 or 2 in each dark, shaded square.

5. Tell them that they have approximately 40 minutes to complete the test.

6. Tell them they must answer on the answer grid for their participation to count.

7. Tell them not to write in the squares that have dots.

174 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

8. Tell them that when a participant has completed the learning styles test, they may

leave class for the day.

9. Ask them if there are any questions about what to do.

10. Allow them to take the test. [Note to teacher: Do whatever you can to ensure that

each student completes the test entirely, even if it involves your and their

voluntary willingness to stay after class a few minutes. Most students should

finish before the period is over.]

175 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

DAY TWO: INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEACHER

CHECKLIST:

***** DO YOU HAVE YOUR PACKET FOR DAY TWO?

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Be sure to wait at least 3-4 additional minutes after class begins in order to

insure that as many students as possible can be counted in the study.

2. Begin class by reading the statement below to the students:

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “Thank you again for participating in this extra credit study. This study will take place over four different class days during this term- this is day two. Your participation today and on the 17tha and December the 1st is necessary in order to earn the extra credit. Keep in mind that the material covered is normal material for this class and the activities you will complete will prepare you for the upcoming semester and doing well in the course in general. Again, thank you for participating in this study.”

3. Now pass out the list of verbs and adverbs so that students may take three

minutes to familiarize themselves with the vocabulary. Read the statement below

to the students:

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “You are now being given three minutes to thoroughly read over and review the verbs and adverbs on the sheet provided. Be sure to review all of the vocabulary on both sides of the sheet of paper. Knowing this vocabulary will be critical to your participation in the study. Again, you have three minutes.”

4. Retrieve all vocabulary sheets from the students, and then administer the

Production Test. In order to begin the Production Test, distribute the test sheets

and read the statement below to the students:

176 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “You will now begin a Production Test. Right now, write your full name clearly on the top right corner of the test sheet. Be sure to read the instructions carefully and complete each and every test item by writing your answer in the blank on the test sheet provided. If you cannot provide a correct answer, feel free to leave it blank or guess. You have approximately 10 minutes to complete the production test. Make sure your name is on the test sheet before you begin. Are there any questions? ...... You may begin now.”

NOTE TO TEACHER: Please allow all students to complete the production test

before moving on to the Interpretation Test.

5. After the Production Test is completed by every student, then administer the

Interpretation Test. It is essential that their full name and their social security

number be clearly printed and indicated with bubbles filled in on the Scantron

answer sheet. Be sure to explain to students that they should answer all test items

on their regular answer sheet and when they are entirely finished they should

slowly and accurately transfer their answers to the Scantron sheet provided. The

answers will of course always be A, B, or C. Begin the Interpretation Test by

reading the following statement to the students:

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “You will now begin an Interpretation Test. The first essential thing to do is print your name clearly at the top of the Scantron answer sheet and at the top of the interpretation test sheet provided. Be sure that your name is on both sheets. Second, you must indicate your social security number by writing it out clearly on the Scantron sheet and filling in the corresponding bubbles below. Once the test begins, you will use only the regular answer sheet and circle the correct answer (either A or B or C) for each test item. Then, at the very end of the test, you will slowly and carefully transfer your answers to the Scantron answer sheet. Again, right now, be sure that your name is on both sheets and that your social security number is clearly indicated. Are there any questions? ...... you may begin.

6. After the Interpretation Test is completed by every student, then administer

Activities A-C. There are a few ground rules concerning how each activity

should be carried out.

177 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

a. after you have read the instructions to the students, do not provide any help for

them as they complete the activities.

b. after they have completed an activity, you will quickly go over the answers with

the students by telling them the correct answer. You are telling them either “A” or

“B” for each item. You should not say the actual Spanish words. Do not explain

why an answer is right or wrong.

NOTE TO TEACHER: After they have completed Activities A-C, you should be aware that Activities D and E and F will require them to express their opinions.

After they have complete Activity D, survey the class for each activity item by a show of hands for each opinion. Do the same for Activities E and F.

Once the last three activities have been completed (D and E and F), students may

leave class, even if class time has not officially expired.

178 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

DAY THREE: INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEACHER

MOST IMPORTANT:

At least fifteen minutes before class begins, pick up your Day Three packet from

Silvia Peart in CMLL 219.

CHECKLIST:

***** DO YOU HAVE YOUR PACKET FOR DAY THREE? (from Silvia)

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Be sure to wait at least 3-4 additional minutes after class begins in order to insure that as many students as possible can be counted in the study.

2. Now administer Activities G-L. There are a few ground rules concerning how each activity should be carried out.

a. after you have read the instructions to the students, do not provide any help for them as they complete the activities.

b. after they have completed an activity, you will quickly go over the answers with the students by telling them the correct answer. You are telling them either “A” or “B” for each item. You should not say the actual Spanish words. Do not explain why an answer is right or wrong.

179 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

NOTE TO TEACHER: After they have completed Activities G-I, you should be aware that Activities J and K and L will require them to express their opinions.

After they have completed Activity J, survey the class for each activity item by a show of hands for each opinion. Do the same for Activities K and L.

3. Now Administer the Production Test. It is important to administer the Production

Test before the Interpretation Test. This way, those who arrive a few minutes after you get started will be able to join in and still be included in the study. (The Interpretation

Test requires a cassette and cannot be started late). In order to begin the Production Test,

distribute the test sheets and read the statement below to the students:

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “You will now begin a Production Test. Right now, write your full name clearly on the top right corner of the test sheet. Be sure to read the instructions carefully and complete each and every test item by writing your answer in the blank on the test sheet provided. If you cannot provide a correct answer, feel free to leave it blank or guess. You have approximately 10 minutes to complete the production test. Make sure your name is on the test sheet before you begin. Are there any questions? ...... You may begin now.”

NOTE TO TEACHER: Please allow all students to complete the production test before moving on to the Interpretation Test.

7. After the Production Test is completed by every student, then administer the

Interpretation Test. It is essential that their full name and their social security number be clearly printed and indicated with bubbles filled in on the Scantron answer sheet. Be sure to explain to students that they should answer all test items on their regular answer sheet and when they are entirely finished they should slowly and accurately transfer their

answers to the Scantron sheet provided. The answers will of course always be A, B, or

C. Begin the Interpretation Test by reading the following statement to the students:

180 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “You will now begin an Interpretation Test. The first essential thing to do is print your name clearly at the top of the Scantron answer sheet and at the top of the interpretation test sheet provided. Be sure that your name is on both sheets. Second, you must indicate your social security number by writing it out clearly on the Scantron sheet and filling in the corresponding bubbles below. Once the test begins, you will use only the regular answer sheet and circle the correct answer (either A or B or C) for each test item. Then, at the very end of the test, you will slowly and carefully transfer your answers to the Scantron answer sheet. Again, right now, be sure that your name is on both sheets and that your social security number is clearly indicated. Are there any questions? ...... you may begin.

Students may leave once they have completed the Interpretation Test and transferred all of their answers to the Scantron sheet. Students should hand in all test sheets to you personally before they leave.

FINAL NOTE TO TEACHER: You should not assign any homework of any kind related to the past tense in Spanish. Our goal is to keep them free of contamination while the study goes on for the next two weeks.

NOW ORGANIZE ALL MATERIALS IN AN ORDERLY FASHION INSIDE THE ENVELOPE AND

RETURN THE PACKET FOR DAY TWO TO CMLL 219. (THE OFFICE OF SILVIA PEART)

END OF DAY THREE

181 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

DAY FOUR: INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEACHER

CHECKLIST:

***** DO YOU HAVE YOUR PACKET FOR DAY FOUR?

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Be sure to wait at least 3-4 additional minutes after class begins in order to

insure that as many students as possible can be counted in the study.

2. Begin class by administering the Background Questionaire. Read the

statement below to the students:

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “Thank you for participating in this extra credit study. This is the last day of participation required for you to received the extra credit. Please take a few minutes to fill out the Background Questionaire. Be as thorough as possible when you are providing us with the necessary information. Thank you again for your participation.”

3. Now administer the Production Test. In order to begin the Production Test,

distribute the test sheets and read the statement below to the students:

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “You will now begin a Production Test. Right now, write your full name clearly on the top right corner of the test sheet. Be sure to read the instructions carefully and complete each and every test item by writing your answer in the blank on the test sheet provided. If you cannot provide a correct answer, feel free to leave it blank or guess. You have approximately 10 minutes to complete the production test. Make sure your name is on the test sheet before you begin. Are there any questions? ...... You may begin now.”

NOTE TO TEACHER: Please allow all students to complete the production test before moving on to the Interpretation Test.

4. After the Production Test is completed by every student, then administer the

Interpretation Test. It is essential that their full name and their social security

182 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

number be clearly printed and indicated with bubbles filled in on the Scantron

answer sheet. Be sure to explain to students that they should answer all test items

on their regular answer sheet and when they are entirely finished they should

slowly and accurately transfer their answers to the Scantron sheet provided. The

answers will of course always be A or B or C. Begin the Interpretation Test by

reading the following statement to the students:

READ THIS ALOUD TO THE CLASS: “You will now begin an Interpretation Test. The first essential thing to do is print your name clearly at the top of the Scantron answer sheet and at the top of the interpretation test sheet provided. Be sure that your name is on both sheets. Second, you must indicate your social security number by writing it out clearly on the Scantron sheet and filling in the corresponding bubbles below. Once the test begins, you will use only the regular answer sheet and circle the correct answer (either A or B or C) for each test item. Then, at the very end of the test, you will slowly and carefully transfer your answers to the Scantron answer sheet. Again, right now, be sure that your name is on both sheets and that your social security number is clearly indicated. Are there any questions? ...... let’s begin.”

Students may leave once they have completed the Interpretation Test and

transferred all of their answers to the Scantron sheet. Students should hand

in all test sheets to you personally before they leave.

NOW ORGANIZE ALL MATERIALS IN AN ORDERLY FASHION INSIDE THE ENVELOPE AND

RETURN THE PACKET FOR DAY FOUR TO CMLL 219. (THE OFFICE OF SILVIA PEART)

END OF DAY FOUR

183 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

APENDIX F

Questionnaire for instructors

184 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

Instructor survey

Respond “yes” or “no” to each question and to explain if needed.

1. Did students have difficulty understanding the instructions to any activities? Was there any visible evidence of this?

2. Did students have difficulty understanding the vocabulary used in the activities? Was there visible evidence of this?

3. Did students have difficulty understanding the instructions concerning the testing materials? Was there visible evidence of this?

4. Were there any other difficulties during the experiment? If so, please explain.

185 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

APENDIX G

Handout

186 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

21 verbos Please red over and review the following in 5 minutes.

Un repaso del vocabulario esencial Hablar To talk

Trabajar To work

Cantar To sing

Actuar To act, to perform

Ayudar To help

Manejar To drive

Fundar To fund

Fumar To smoke

Viajar To travel

Beber To drink

Comer To eat

Leer To read

Hacer To do

Ser To be

Tener To have

Dormir To sleep

Decir To say

Escribir To write

Vivir To live

Ir To go influir To influence

187 Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008

21 Adverbios

Un repaso del vocabulario esencial

El fin de semana pasado Last weekend

Todos los días Every day

Regularmente Regularly

Normalmente Normally

Las semana pasada Last week

Todos los fines de semana Every weekend

Generalmente Generally

El año pasado Last year

El mes pasado Last moth

El semestre pasado Last semester

Frecuentemente Frequently

Cuando Joven When I was young

Hace años Years ago

Hace muchos años Many years ago

Ahora Now

En el pasado In the past

Actualmente Presently

De niño When I was a kid

Hoy día Nowadays

188