Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:42:10.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VISUAL INPUT ENHANCEMENT AND GRAMMAR LEARNING: A Meta-Analytic Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2008

Sang-Ki Lee  and
Hung-Tzu Huang
Sang-Ki Lee*
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Hung-Tzu Huang*
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
*
Sang-Ki Lee, Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 1890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822; e-mail: [email protected]
Hung-Tzu Huang, Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 1890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effects of pedagogical interventions with visual input enhancement on grammar learning have been investigated by a number of researchers during the past decade and a half. The present review delineates this research domain via a systematic synthesis of 16 primary studies (comprising 20 unique study samples) retrieved through an exhaustive literature search. The overall magnitude of visual input enhancement was addressed by calculating and aggregating effect size d values. The results indicate that second language readers provided with enhancement-embedded texts barely outperformed those who were exposed to unenhanced texts with the same target forms flooded in them (d = 0.22). A theoretical tension between form and meaning was indicated by a small but negative effect size value for learners' meaning processing (d = −0.26). The importance of improving methodological practices in this research domain, including the reporting of statistical and treatment-related information and the counteracting of a possible publication bias, was also revealed by the synthetic analyses and is further discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 307 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

*Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Barcroft, J. (2003). Distinctiveness and bidirectional effects in input enhancement for vocabulary learning. Applied Language Learning, 13, 133–159.Google Scholar
Bransdorfer, R. (1991). Communicative value and linguistic knowledge in second language acquisition oral input processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nded.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Doughty, C.J. (1988). The effects of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
*Doughty, C.J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C.J. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
*Ha, J. (2005). Developing English determiners through Internet chat: An experiment with Korean EFL students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2000). Promoting noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
*Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Visual input enhancement as focus on form. Sophia Linguistica, 13, 1–30.Google Scholar
*Jourdenais, R. (1998). The effects of textual enhancement on the acquisition of the Spanish preterit and imperfect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
*Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C.J. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183–216). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2003). Effects of input elaboration and enhancement on second language vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.Google Scholar
*Kubota, S. (2000). Input enhancement in classroom second language acquisition of Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
*Lee, S.-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students' reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C.J. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 217–258). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
*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.Google Scholar
*Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*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, 1–16.Google Scholar
Light, R. & Pillemer, D. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P.M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. B., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorch, R.F. Jr., Lorch, E.P., & Klusewitz, M.A. (1995). Effects of typographical cues on reading and recall of text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J.M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J.M. & Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3–50). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229–258.Google Scholar
*Overstreet, M. (2002). The effects of textual enhancement on second language learner reading comprehension and form recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Pacheco, J. (2004). A comparison of textual input enhancement and explicit rule presentation in secondary one English as a second language classes. Unpublished master's thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on ‘noticing the gap’: Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect sizes. In Cooper, H. & Hedges, L. (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Sato, K. (2005). Does instruction help learners become proficient in L2 writing? The case of the Japanese particles wa, ga, and the passive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiba, Z. (2001). Classroom instruction and second language acquisition: The effect of explicit form-focused instruction on L2 learners' linguistic competence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Shook, D.J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57–93.Google Scholar
Shook, D.J. (1999). What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 10, 39–76.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P.M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 279–298). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trahey, M. & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and pre-emption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J. (1996). An input enhancement study with ESL children: Effects on the acquisition of possessive determiners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
*White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wijaya, J. (2000, May). Typographical input enhancement for learning Indonesian transitivity. Paper presented at the tenth annual meeting of the Southwest Asian Linguistics Society, Tempe, Arizona.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J.N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witten, C.M. (2002). The effects of input enhancement and interactive video viewing on the development of pragmatic awareness and use in the beginning Spanish L2 classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2000). The effects of textual enhancement and simplified input on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17–45.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar