The comparative effectiveness of noticing in language learning
-
Muhlise Cosgun Ögeyik
Abstract
The Noticing Hypothesis holds that input does not become intake during language learning unless it is noticed. The hypothesis has been tested and evaluated in many empirical studies for more than two decades, either supported or criticized. This study shares the findings on the comparative effectiveness of noticing treatments gathered and evaluated from various empirical studies that were carried out in different countries. The results of the studies reflect the potentials of noticing treatments in second language/foreign language -L2- instruction/learning and touch upon the validity of the Noticing Hypothesis. The results of the reviewed studies also showed that noticing through output oriented tasks generates higher level of perception of L2 knowledge.
References
Bahrami, M. 2010. The effect of task types on EFL learners’ listening ability. URC Undergraduate Research Journal 9. http://www.kon.org/urc/v9/bahrami.html (accessed October 2014)Suche in Google Scholar
Benati, A. 2005. The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research 9. 67–93.10.1191/1362168805lr154oaSuche in Google Scholar
Bielak, J. & M. Pawlak 2013. Applying cognitive grammar in the foreign language classroom. Teaching English tense and aspect. London: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-27455-8Suche in Google Scholar
Birjandi, P. & S. Ahangari 2008. Effects of task repetition on the fluency, complexity and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral discourse. The Asian EFL Journal 10/3. http://asian-efl-journal.com/quarterly- (accessed October 2014)Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Suche in Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., D. M. Brinton & M. A. Snow. 2013. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Suche in Google Scholar
Egi, T. 2010. Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal 94. 1–21.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.xSuche in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 1993. Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 5. 289–318.10.1080/09541449308520120Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 1997. SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2006. Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly 40. 83–107.10.2307/40264512Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2008. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2009. Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal 3. 1–18.10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, R., S. Loewen & R. Erlam 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 339–368.10.1017/S0272263106060141Suche in Google Scholar
Farley, A. 2005. Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Suche in Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., J. Behney & L. Plonsky. 2013. Second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203137093Suche in Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & L. Selinker. 2008. Second language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203932841Suche in Google Scholar
Hawkes, M. L. 2011. Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal 66(3). 327–336.10.1093/elt/ccr059Suche in Google Scholar
Izumi, S & M. Bigelow. 2000. Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 34. 239–278.10.2307/3587952Suche in Google Scholar
Jourdenais, R. 2001. Protocol analysis and SLA. In Peter. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition, 354–375. New York: Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.014Suche in Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. 2006. The role of awareness ın l2 development: Theory, research, and pedagogy. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching 2(2). 1–15.Suche in Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada. 1990. Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12. 429–448.10.1017/S0272263100009517Suche in Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada. 2013. How languages are learned, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Loewen, S. 2009. Recasts in multi-move focus on form episodes. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction, 176–196. New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 413–468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3Suche in Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & L. Ranta 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19. 37–66.10.1017/S0272263197001034Suche in Google Scholar
Mackey, A. 2006. Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27. 405–430.10.1093/applin/ami051Suche in Google Scholar
Ortega, L. 2009. Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder.Suche in Google Scholar
Pica, T. 2005. Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. The Modern Language Journal 89. 339–352.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00309.xSuche in Google Scholar
Rahi, M. 2013. The effect of explicit feedback on the use of language learning strategies: The role of instruction. Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi 2(5). 1–12.Suche in Google Scholar
Rosa, E. M. & M. O‘Neill. 1999. Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21. 511–556.10.1017/S0272263199004015Suche in Google Scholar
Sadeghi, B. & H. Heidaryan. 2012. The effect of teaching pragmatic discourse markers on EFL learners’ listening comprehension. English Linguistics Research 1(2). 165–176.10.5430/elr.v1n2p165Suche in Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1994. Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. Iranian EFL Journal. AILA Review 11. 11–26.Suche in Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003Suche in Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 2010. Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan & I. Walker (eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC, Singapore. December 2–4, 721–737. http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT (accessed October 2014)Suche in Google Scholar
Shirazi, Z. R. H. & F. Sadighi. 2012. Implicit versus explicit feedback in classroom: An experimental study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 3(3). 439–445.10.4304/jltr.3.3.439-445Suche in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1177/003368829802900209Suche in Google Scholar
Smith, B. 2012. Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology 16(3). 53–81.Suche in Google Scholar
Swain, M. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. & V. Villa 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16. 183–203.10.1017/S0272263100012870Suche in Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Suche in Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 2015. Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics 53(2). 91–109.10.1515/iral-2015-0005Suche in Google Scholar
Walsh, M. 2005. Consciousness-raising (C-R): Its background and application. www.walshsensei.org/Walsh2005CR.pdf (accessed 12 June 2014).Suche in Google Scholar
Williams, J. 2004. Implicit learning of form-meaning connections. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott & M. Overstreet (eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition, 203–218. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410610607Suche in Google Scholar
Winke, P. M. 2013. The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension: A modified replication of Lee (2007) with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(2). 323–352.10.1017/S0272263112000903Suche in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
