Explore 5 key techniques of INPUT ENHANCEMENT, each one a powerful tool in language teaching to help our learners absorb, retain, and use linguistic input more effectively.
Table of Contents
- A recap of the role of Language Input for Language Acquisition
- What is INPUT ENHANCEMENT?
- What is the relationship between Noticing and INPUT ENHANCEMENT?
- Trend of INPUT ENHANCEMENT Techniques found in Research
- 1. Input Flood
- 2. Repetition
- 3. Perceptual Enhancement (Textual Enhancement and Aural Enhancement)
- 4. Multi-modal Enhancement
- 5. Interactive Tasks
- Conclusion: some final tips
- Recommended Readings
- References
Imagine that we are time-traveling to ancient Egypt, where hieroglyphics adorn the walls of majestic temples. Here we are, trying to decipher the meaning of text with minimal clues informed by some minimal knowledge. Now, the magical guru among us starts to wave a magic wand, and suddenly certain symbols stand out! They somewhat literally leap off the walls and capture the attention of all who gaze upon them. Upon “noticing” them, we suddenly have a better sense of how the forms relate to the meaning, and we have a better chance of succeeding in really understanding much more of the prose.
Now, that is a reductionist narrative of INPUT ENHANCEMENT in a nutshell. As language educators, we’re well aware of the importance of Language Input in the learning process, aren’t we? Yet, sometimes we find ourselves pondering if there’s a way to make certain features of this input more prominent – so that learners can imprint them into their memory and grasp the most important learning points that we are targeting.
While we might not have a magic wand at our disposal, we do have a treasure trove of techniques to help our students get a handle on the intricacies of linguistic forms. In this article, we will delve into the exploration of 15 techniques of INPUT ENHANCEMENT, each one a powerful tool in our arsenal of techniques, designed to help our students absorb, retain, and use linguistic input more effectively. With these techniques, we have a better chance in strengthening the language learning process, and also foster a deeper understanding and appreciation for the beauty and complexity of the languages we teach.
A recap of the role of Language Input for Language Acquisition
Before we head into the techniques proper, let us revisit the role of Language Input. Language Input plays a crucial role in language acquisition, regardless of whether it is the context of first language acquisition or second language acquisition. Primarily, it encompasses everything to which the learner is exposed in the target language in all the different receptive modes (i.e. listening, reading). In other words, it provides the raw materials for language acquisition, allowing learners to develop their understanding of the sounds, structures, and vocabulary of the target language.
Language Input can also play a role in more advanced stages of language learning, as learners continue to build their vocabulary, grammar, and understanding of the language. Exposure to a variety of input can help learners to develop their language skills and improve their ability to use the language in real-world situations. I have also discussed earlier how the lack of Language Input can also lead to the phenomenon of “Language Attrition”.
However, we all know that the mere presence of Language Input does not guarantee acquisition. The learner must first convert the “Input” into “Intake”, which is the data that the learner processes. This processed information can then become useful information for acquisition.
Various theories exist on how different types of Language Input becomes Intake, and scholars generally recognised to varying degrees how each type can facilitate acquisition. One of those types, ENHANCED INPUT, is what we are interested in this article. Ready? Let’s plunge into the world of INPUT ENHANCEMENT and revolutionise our language teaching practices!
Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining our online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.
What is INPUT ENHANCEMENT?
So, what is INPUT ENHANCEMENT? What are the problems of input that this approach is aiming to solve? Below are some of the definitions adopted by various scholars:
- “pedagogical interventions that attempt to make specific features of L2 input more salient so that learners will be more likely to pay attention to these features” (Barcroft and Wong, 2013);
- “a pedagogical intervention that aims at helping L2 learners to notice specific forms in the input” (Benati, 2016);
- “emphasising a particular aspect of the input by using a range of techniques such as textual manipulation, is one way in which learners’ attention potentially can be drawn to specific elements in the input” (Cho, 2010)
- “Draw learners’ attention to certain aspects of the input or manipulate aspects of the input to increase their salience” (Sharwood Smith, 1991, 1993)
- “an operation whose aim is to make linguistic features salient through techniques such as written (e.g., highlighting) or oral (e.g., repetition) enhancement, thereby increasing the probability that learners pay attention to and potentially learn the enhanced features” (Révész et al., 2021)
INPUT ENHANCEMENT, in a nutshell, refers to any technique that helps to draw our attention to specific features of linguistic forms in the target language (e.g. specific affixes related to tenses in English, the words that perform the function of classifiers in Mandarin sentences, the affixes that represent honorifics in Japanese and Korean). Think of it as a spotlight shining on a particular aspect of grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation that we would otherwise overlook.
What is the relationship between Noticing and INPUT ENHANCEMENT?
The proposal of INPUT ENHANCEMENT did not come surprising. For a long time, observations were noted whereby learners’ mere exposure to Naturalistic Input did not result in the acquisition of linguistic forms – even if meaning can be communicated, learners were not necessarily able to achieve the accuracy in target forms. In fact, those forms may not even be noticed.
Within the field then, in the 1990s, there was also the prevailing assumption that Comprehensible Input was sufficient for acquisition to take place (Gascoigne, 2006; Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985). However, while educational institutions running on immersion models of language learning – where students have access to abundance of Comprehensible Input – had recorded success of high fluency in language proficiency attainment, accuracy in forms were cited as the key gap. Those linguistic forms did not become part of the Intake as expected.
We may also relate this to the fictional story of the Egyptian hieroglyphics at the beginning of this article. We have the whole wall of symbols in our vision, and we may decode for the meaning that is the most integral to the goal of communication then – but we may miss out the forms necessary for learning so that we can transfer that to another novel context, such as a new wall of hieroglyphics.
The key explanations why we may do so can be found in the following limitations of attention (Schmidt, 2001):
- Attention is limited: no one can attend to an amount of things beyond their attentional capacity;
- Attention is selective: since attention is finite, any activity that demands it will hinder other activities that require it, resulting in a strategic allocation of attention based on contextual cost-benefit analyses;
- Attention is subject to voluntary control: there are aspects of attention where we can control, allowing us to concentrate our attention on a selected aspect (e.g. in the context of learning);
- Attention controls access to consciousness: only stimuli that have been selected by attention are consciously perceived, while unselected stimuli are not;
- Attention is essential for the control of action: Especially for novices, where processing is not completely automatic, attention is required to drive action. For experts, even at critical points (e.g. high-stake situations, anomalies), attention is required to determine action taken.
- Attention is essential for learning: taking reference from memory models in psychology, unattended stimuli is posited to remain in immediate short-term memory for a brief duration, at best, and that attention is a necessary and sufficient requirement for the storage of information in long-term memory – which characterises true learning.
Due to these limitations, Schmidt puts forward the “Noticing Hypothesis” (1990, 2001, 2012), highlighting the position that Language Input needs to be consciously noticed and registered by the learner before it has the possibility of becoming Intake, as opposed to simply being passively exposed to it. In other words, learners need to pay attention to the Language Input, to the specific forms embedded within the input in order for them to be processed and integrated into their language knowledge.
By default, we prioritise the extraction of meaning in strings of language over their linguistic forms – it can be quite ludicrously inconceivable that some of us foregrounds pattern-searching in a communicative context in contrast to making sure that we communicate. The key to bridge the gap to also notice the forms, is thus INPUT ENHANCEMENT as proposed by Sharwood Smith (1991, 1993). With this intervention, learners can be nudged to attend to the forms in process of meaning extraction.
Trend of INPUT ENHANCEMENT Techniques found in Research
In its inception, Sharwood Smith (1993) proceeded to differentiate two major types of INPUT ENHANCEMENT: Positive and Negative. Positive INPUT ENHANCEMENT aims to highlight and draw attention to correct forms in the input, while Negative INPUT ENHANCEMENT aims to identify and mark incorrect forms as violations of the target norms, alerting learners to their errors. The realm of Negative INPUT ENHANCEMENT will thus relate to common feedback practices that we may be implementing in our classrooms for language learning (e.g. corrective feedback, recasts).
Another dimension of categorisation that was raised pertains to the degree of elaboration. At one end of the spectrum, the relevant techniques were framed to be implicit and non-obtrusive in nature: the teacher simply manipulates the Language Input by making targeted forms more salient by typeface modification or repetition to which learners are passively exposed. On the other end of the spectrum, the techniques are more explicit and obtrusive, where learners are directly pointed to the forms (positive or negative) and be taught metalinguistic knowledge to analyse those forms.
However, as the research on INPUT ENHANCEMENT accumulates, scholars within the field of language acquisition and language education directed the focus more to Positive INPUT ENHANCEMENT with implicit and non-obtrusive techniques such as INPUT FLOOD and TEXTUAL ENHANCEMENT (Benati, 2016; Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2014). What happens then, to the other techniques that are more explicit and obtrusive or those that dealt with negative input? It’s worth noting that scholars in L2 acquisition and language education have not ignored these approaches; some (though not many) have continued to investigate this framed under INPUT ENHANCEMENT, but most others have incorporated them into the broader framework of “Focus-on-Form” language education. We may explore them in future articles, though.
Before we head into the specific techniques, there are two points to note though. First, we are attempting to manipulate the external stimuli to accentuate the aspects that we hope students can pick up as part of learning, thus expediting certain processes of learning. Notwithstanding such, we cannot make assumptions that the students can definitely respond accordingly – we still need to verify and make amendments where necessary, though hopefully gain a large repertoire of techniques that can make classroom instruction more efficient (e.g. demand to explain every linguistic form in detail, higher occurrence of incidental language learning for the students with less teacher intervention over the long term).
Second, the notion that we are “enhancing” the input is premised on the identification of target forms that we hope that our learners can attend to. Preferably, noting the limitations of attention, we try to be consistent in accentuating forms that conform to similar structures (e.g. all on past tenses, all on honorifics) in one exercise, instead of introducing a whole range of forms that we hope to extensively cover – we cannot have the whole-year curriculum completed in one lesson. With these in mind, let us start the exploration!
1. Input Flood
Input Flood refers to the technique where a text, regardless of spoken or written, is inserted artificially with many exemplars of a target form. In other words, it is “flooded” with the target linguistic feature. The rationale underpinning this technique is that the repeated exposure to a specific language structure or form in a given text can increase the likelihood of learners “noticing” the form (and hopefully acquiring it subsequently). An example is given below for reference:
“Yesterday, I walked to the store after class and purchased some groceries. When I returned home, I cooked dinner and then watched TV for a while. Later, I talked to my friend on the phone and discussed possible outings next week. I suggested a list of activities and we decided to go to the movies. When I realised I still had an undone work my teacher assigned me, I rushed to complete it.”
As you can see from the example above, the “-ed” affix is repeatedly shown in the first paragraph. Input Flood requires a strategic presentation of text(s) with a high density of the desired forms or structures. It emphasises a suitable instructional context where learners can read for meaning but may also have the opportunity to discern patterns and regularities in a given text. Teachers and material developers play a significant role in meticulously crafting content that showcases the desired forms in a manner that is meaningful and engaging for the learners (I know my example is not that inspiring). If you are familiar with books written by Dr Seuss, there can be many examples of Input Flood in many of his works (e.g. Cat in the Hat).
Input Flood may not necessarily be a single isolated instructional event. Through continuous “flooding” for a similar target form, learners are more likely to notice, understand, and internalise the patterns. Furthermore, the regular encounter of repeated forms within diverse contexts allows for greater chances of retention, as learners connect those forms to different situations and meanings via the implicit statistical learning mechanisms.
In conclusion, Input Flood is a valuable technique in our repertoire, characterised by the strategic repetition of a specific target form in written and oral input and the creation of a learning environment where such input can be processed naturally with engagement.
2. Repetition
Repetition may somehow be indistinguishable from Input Flood at first look, although it is actually quite different. It can also be a technique in both oral and written settings. There are two types of Repetition: Exact Repetition and Varied Repetition.
Exact repetition, as the name suggests, involves repeating exposure to the same unmodified input over a series of planned instances (e.g. twice, thrice). The learners may not be able to immediately “notice” certain target forms due to attention limitations within the first instance and may even have difficulty processing the meaning, especially in the context of listening. Exact repetition allows for an iterative processing of the input, where attention can be shifted to forms after the meaning has been comprehended.
Varied repetition is a slight variant of the earlier technique, where the variation comes with adjusting specific target words or forms to demonstrate a novel manifestation of the same linguistic forms. This is based on the mechanisms of syntactic priming (though not completely similar), where the learners might have some sense of the forms but have not yet “noticed” them. With a repeated exposure to a similar text with slight changes, learners may then have a higher probability of “noticing” them.
The traditional implementation of Repetition as an INPUT ENHANCEMENT technique is a pure re-listening or re-reading event – the learners repeat the same activity in the second or subsequent instance of re-exposure (regardless of exact repetition or varied repetition). These are some practised techniques that I know – but they may also be reminiscent of some “outdated” language teaching methods such as the Audio-Lingual Method. Depending on our ideologies, I do know language teachers that try to shun such methods, though my personal position is always to experiment with different methods (sometimes learners just like to have a whole wide range of learning experiences).
As such, Repetition can also be implemented in alternative ways: Copying by writing or typing; reciting prepared texts, dictation of earlier shown texts are all ways to engage in Repetition and reinforce the processing of the Language Input in question. Writing and typing or reciting in particular require learners to re-produce the language in the input themselves, which can help them internalise it more deeply and may also have the additional benefit of making another imprint which can be useful during retrievals for use in similar communicative settings.
Overall, Repetition can be an effective method of enhancing Language Input in both oral and written contexts. Regardless of whether it entails exact or varied Repetition, this technique enables learners to re-process similar input, which can lead to an iterative process that promotes the noticing and, hopefully, acquisition of the target structures.
Join our mailing list!
Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!
3. Perceptual Enhancement (Textual Enhancement and Aural Enhancement)
Among techniques in INPUT ENHANCEMENT, it will not be overstatement to declare that Perceptual Enhancement is almost the default. It is widely practised by language teachers and material writers without even knowing that it is a form of INPUT ENHANCEMENT. Perceptual Enhancement refers to the technique that modifies the text in ways that appeal directly to the sensory perceptions.
In the written mode, Perceptual Enhancement is more well-known as Textual Enhancement (also known as Visual Input Enhancement) which is the manipulation of typographical cues through actions such as bolding, italicisation, underlining, highlighting, and changing font size/colour/style to attract attention to the targeted forms. Using the not-so-interesting text I have created for input flood earlier as an example, the version that undergoes Textual Enhancement will be as follows:
Yesterday, I walked to the store after class and purchased some groceries. When I returned home, I cooked dinner and then watched TV for a while. Later, I talked to my friend on the phone and discussed possible outings next week. I suggested a list of activities and we decided to go to the movies. When I realised I still had an undone work my teacher assigned me, I rushed to complete it.
So now in this version, all the “-ed” affixes are italicised and highlighted. Does that catch your attention better? However, practitioners have also shared cautionary tales on using this technique.
- First, these should be used sparingly. Too many typographical cues can be overwhelming and detract learners from the actual language processing.
- Second, try to keep the typographical actions consistent. Do not use bolding in one instance and then italicisation in another.
In the oral mode, Perceptual Enhancement is known as Aural Enhancement (or Aural/Oral Input Enhancement). This involves the use of phonological cues such as intonation, speed, stresses, and pauses to bring salience to the targeted forms. Taking the earlier text as an example, whenever a verb with the “-ed” affix is encountered, the speaker can slow down and put on a loud stress on the word to signal to the learners to pay attention to that group of words.
When we say processing for meaning is the priority in engagement of any novel text, it is even more so the case for speech/utterances. As such, Aural Enhancement can be extremely useful for learners. Notwithstanding such, it should be noted that beginning learners should still be exposed to naturalistic speech/utterances to have a preset representation of fluency in the target language before been exposed to such input that has undergone Aural Enhancement. If learners lack knowledge of the norm in the first place, they may not be able to identify the targeted features that deviate from it.
Despite its apparent ease of implementation, the findings of the effects of Perceptual Enhancement on language acquisition are quite mixed. Some studies found moderate success with the technique, while some others either found no effects or even counter-productive ones. In summary, Perceptual Enhancement does help learners “notice” certain elements of the given input (aural/oral or written) to a certain degree, but many learners may not be able to synthesise the patterns/regularities behind those elements to convert them to Intake for acquisition. This is something that we should take note as we implement this in our classrooms and materials writing ubiquitously.
4. Multi-modal Enhancement
Let me start with a caveat, riding on the caution I have raised in the earlier section. Findings with mixed results in INPUT ENHANCEMENT are not just confined to the techniques belonging to Perceptual Enhancement but may also extend to Input Flood and Repetition. The key reflection though, is that these techniques do not work as well as expected when used in isolation (i.e. SOLELY using Input Flood and expecting a positive result on language acquisition). An approach that is integrated (e.g. merge the use of the different techniques) or complimented with instruction (e.g. the teacher raising further awareness to the cues of Perceptual Enhancement) has an increased likelihood of reaping more successful outcomes than their isolated counterparts.
Here I am not suggesting that INPUT ENHANCEMENT is not effective in what it aims to achieve, since it can make instruction more efficient when the “noticing” issue can be addressed as part of an incidental learning process (e.g. as learners read the text as part of pre-lesson activity). My main point is that we cannot expect it to work effectively with high hit rate on its own – we need to throw in a few more magic potions to strengthen the intervention. Our instructional process still matters (thankfully) even though we have a better chance at success with the enhancement.
This is why the technique of Multi-modal Enhancement is important. Instead of appealing to either one of the sensory devices (e.g. vision or hearing) for “noticing”, the combined stimulation has a higher probability to achieving the “noticing”. Just take the situation where we are strolling through a bustling marketplace: We hear many people chattering while experiencing the scent of fragrant spices filling our nostrils, and we see vibrant colours in every direction. Wouldn’t such a rich sensory experience leave a lasting impression on us?
Similarly, we can create a similar experience in a language learning classroom. For instance, we can present a text that has been textually enhanced with the salient typographical cues to the learners while also playing the recital of the text (or a reading aloud by the teacher) for learners to listen alongside their reading activity. The typographical cues in the written text work in tandem with the phonological cues in the spoken text. We can even consider the creation of podcasts to support such learning experiences which are also powerful experiences in supporting the development of reading expertise.
Another possibility is to engage the use of audio-visual materials for learning. By combining listening with visual stimuli, we create a more immersive and engaging experience. Think of it as watching a movie with subtitles. Our students hear the language spoken with the targeted forms, see the words written with focus on the targeted forms, and can even observe actual situations through the film to help them understand the communicative context.
In summary, Multi-modal Enhancement can be a powerful technique in our repertoire of INPUT ENHANCEMENT. Knowing the individual techniques from section 1 to 3 has been important to help us operationalise the details of enhancement on different medium in various contexts. By combining them organically in an integrated experience with Multi-modal Enhancement, we have a higher chance of success in nudging learners to “notice” and eventually acquire the target forms.
5. Interactive Tasks
The techniques presented hitherto are generally framed within the context of “passive” exposure to the input as a means of learning – “passive” in the sense that learners are receiving the input doing the processing internally and there is no immediate or pressing need to act upon the results of that processing to perform or do something. In such a case, what if the design incorporates an “active” element that compels the learner to engage actively with the input for processing?
This is where the incorporation of Interactive Tasks as part of the enhancement can prove beneficial. Note that the “interactive” here does not necessarily refer to an actual interaction between humans in activities such as role-playing or simulated dialogues – although these are also possible actual tasks to achieve a similar purpose. The notion of “interactive” here is really to put forward the requirement for the learner to “interact” with the targeted forms and “notice” them in the given input, as part of the active processing, to be then able to complete the task.
So, what tasks are possible? If you are familiar with the range of tasks in Task-based Language Teaching, you can review your personal list of tasks for possible options where such a technique can be used. However, do note that INPUT ENHANCEMENT is a “Focus-on-Form” method that may interfere with the constructs and design of a true blue Task-based Instruction – if you do mind.
In general, tasks that involve some form of puzzle-solving can work wonders: crossword, word hunt, word tree, find-the-difference, etc. There is some form of gamification here which makes the task engaging, and the task can essentially be designed to drive learners to locate the words or structures with the targeted forms and use them to solve the puzzles.
Otherwise, we can also re-package comprehension tasks (e.g. reading a passage and answering comprehension questions) as role-playing scenarios (e.g. act as a peer teacher who is presenting key points of the passage) where the learners are required to extract the relevant information with the targeted forms to address the “questions”.
By and large, integrating a body of static input with Interactive Tasks that prompts learners to the targeted forms can be useful and motivating. Learners have to engage and attend to the targeted forms in order to resolve the task, which fundamentally addresses the need for “noticing”. With our added instruction, there is an increased possibility of acquisition of those targeted forms.
Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining our online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.
Conclusion: some final tips
To sum up, INPUT ENHANCEMENT can have the potential to expedite our instruction by propelling our learners to “notice” the target linguistic forms that we are trying to teach. I have shared on 5 main techniques of enhancement where all of us can keep in mind as we prepare our lesson materials or create texts for independent reading/listening by our learners.
I would like to end this article with an additional short list of tips that we may also want to keep in mind if we do implement INPUT ENHANCEMENT as part of our regular practices:
- Certain linguistic forms with high communicative value (forms which are pivotal for understanding e.g. case-marking affixes which allow us to understand who/what is the subject in relation to the object) will usually have a high chance of being noticed with or without enhancement. That being said, INPUT ENHANCEMENT can accelerate this process.
- Linguistic forms with low communicative value (forms which do not affect fundamental understanding even if interpreted or used wrongly e.g. classifiers of an object, honorifics) may not be noticed even with enhancement techniques which are isolated or single-sensory. Consider the use of Multi-modal Enhancement and Interactive Tasks for such forms.
- Taking note of the limitations of attention, it might be more palatable for learners to process input for meaning (grasp the content) before processing for form, so that there is no competition of attention within a single activity. Repetition is thus the useful technique here. This can be explicitly highlighted to learners in a lesson.
- Notwithstanding the previous point, we can still use Input Flood and Perceptual Enhancement for self-directed learning activities (e.g. independent reading/listening) so that we create more opportunities for incidental acquisition of target linguistic features beyond our classrooms. Learners who may not have learned through these means can be attended to in class while learners who have acquired via such means can extend their learning further through other stretch activities in class.
Thank you for reading! If you like what you are reading, do subscribe to our mailing list to receive updated resources and tips for language educators. Please also feel free to provide us any feedback or suggestions on content that you would like covered.
Recommended Readings
- Barcroft, J., & Wong, W. (2013). Input, input processing and focus on form. In Herschensohn, J., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 627-647). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 65-88.
- Cho, M.Y. (2010). The effects of input enhancement and written recall on noticing and acquisition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 71-87.
- Cho, M.Y., & Reinders, H. (2013). The Effects of Aural Input Enhancement on L2 Acquisition. In Bergsleithner, J. M., Frota, S. N., & Yoshioka, J. K. (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in Honor of Richard Schmidt. Honolulu Hawaii: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
- Gascoigne, C. (2006). Explicit Input Enhancement: Effects on Target and Non-Target Aspects of Second Language Acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 551-564.
- Han, Z., Park, E.S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual Enhancement of Input: Issues and Possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597-618.
- Lee, S., & Huang, H. (2008). Visual Input Enhancement and Grammar Learning: A Meta-Analytic Review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307-331.
- Leow, R.P. (2008). Input Enhancement and L2 Grammatical Development: What the Research Reveals. In Katz, S.L., & Watzinger-Tharp, J. (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and their Application in the L2 Classroom (pp. 16-34). Boston USA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
- Révész, A., Benton, L., Vasalou, A., Bunting, L., Segerstad, Y.H.A., Florea, A., Mihu, I.P., Gilabert, R., Parry, C. (2021). The Effects of Multiple-Exposure Textual Enhancement on Child L2 Learners’ Development in Derivational Morphology: A Multi-Site Study. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 901-930.
- Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S.M., & Schmidt, R.W. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acqusition . In Gass, S.M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 247 – 267). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
- Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
- Schimdt R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32), Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In Chan, W.M., Chin, K.N., Bhatt, S.K., & Walker, I. (Eds.), Perspectives on Individual Characteristics and Foreign Language Education (pp. 27-50). Berlin Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
- Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7(2), 118-132.
- Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input Enhancement in Instructed SLA: Theoretical Bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179.
- Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). Explaining input enhancement: a MOGUL perspective. IRAL, 52(3), 253-281.
- Winke, P.M. (2015). 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, 323-352.
References
Abadikhah, S., & Shahriyarpour, A. (2012). The Role of Output, Input Enhancement and Collaborative Output in the Acquisition of English Passive Forms. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 667-676.
Ajabshir, Z.F. (2020). The relative efficacy of input enhancement, input flooding, and output-based instructional approaches in the acquisition of L2 request modifiers. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 411-433.
Barcroft, J., & Wong, W. (2013). Input, input processing and focus on form. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 627-647). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 65-88.
Berent, G. & Kelly, R. (2007). The Efficacy of Visual Input Enhancement in Teaching Deaf Learners of L2 English. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding Second Language Process (pp. 80-105). Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cho, M.Y. (2010). The effects of input enhancement and written recall on noticing and acquisition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 71-87.
Cho, M.Y., & Reinders, H. (2013). The Effects of Aural Input Enhancement on L2 Acquisition. In Bergsleithner, J. M., Frota, S. N., & Yoshioka, J. K. (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in Honor of Richard Schmidt. Honolulu Hawaii: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Dastjerdi, H.V., & Farshid, M. (2020). The Role of Input Enhancement in Teaching Compliments. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 460-466.
Farshi, N., Tavakoli, M., & Ketabi, S. (2019). Receiving different types of input for learning and retention of English grammatical collocations in EFL classrooms. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 14(4), 297-312.
Gascoigne, C. (2006). Explicit Input Enhancement: Effects on Target and Non-Target Aspects of Second Language Acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 551-564.
Ghavamnia, M., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Dastjerdi, H.V. (2018). The effects of input-enhanced instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 114-131.
Grim, F. (2013). Using culture beyond its borders: the use of content-enriched instruction and the effects of input enhancement on learning in high school French classes. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 219-238.
Gutiérrez, C.H.S., Serrano, M.P., & García, P.R. (2019). The effects of word frequency and typographical enhancement on incidental vocabulary learning in reading. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 6(1), 14-31.
Han, Z., Park, E.S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual Enhancement of Input: Issues and Possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597-618.
Hirakawa, M., Shibuya, M., & Endo, M. (2019). Explicit instruction, input flood or study abroad: Which helps Japanese learners of English acquire adjective ordering?. Language Teaching Research, 23(2), 158-178.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, Input Enhancement, and The Noticing Hypothesis: An Experimental Study an ESL Relativisation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Jensen, E.D., & Vinther, T. (2003). Exact Repetition as Input Enhancement in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 53(3), 373-428.
Jung, J., Stainer, M.J., & Tran, M.H. (2022). The impact of textual enhancement and frequency manipulation on incidental learning of collocations from reading. Language Teaching Research. DOI: 10.1177/13621688221129994.
Kim, E.C. (2010). Textual Input Enhancement: Applications in Teaching. ORTESOL Journa1, 28, 22-27.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford UK: Pergamon Press Inc.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford UK: Pergamon Press Inc.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London UK: Longman Group UK Ltd.
Lee, J.F. (2000). Five Types of Input and the Various Relationships between Form and Meaning. In Lee, J.F., & Valdman, A. (Eds.), Form and Meaning: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 44 – 61). Boston USA: Heinle & Heinle.
Lee, S., & Huang, H. (2008). Visual Input Enhancement and Grammar Learning: A Meta-Analytic Review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307-331.
Leow, R.P. (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, 469-509.
Leow, R.P. (2008). Input Enhancement and L2 Grammatical Development: What the Research Reveals. In Katz, S.L., & Watzinger-Tharp, J. (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and their Application in the L2 Classroom (pp. 16-34). Boston USA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Liu, H., & Hao, H. (2021). Input enhancement improved L2 learners’ production of Chinese classifiers. CASLAR, 10(1), 53-73.
Loewen, S., & Inceoglu, S. (2016). The effectiveness of visual input enhancement on the noticing and L2 development of the Spanish past tense. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 89-110.
Lyddon, P.A. (2011). The Efficacy of Corrective Feedback and Textual Enhancement in Promoting the Acquisition of Grammatical Redundancies. The Modern Language Journal, 95, Supplementary Issue, 104-129.
Mangubhai, F. (2007). Book floods and comprehensible input floods: providing ideal conditions for second language acquisition. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 147-156.
Mayén, N.R. (2013). Effects of Input Enhancement and Visual Prompts in Children’s L2 Acquisition of Spanish Verbal Morphology. Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada, 13. 83-111.
Meguro, Y. (2019). Textual enhancement, grammar learning, reading comprehension, and tag questions. Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 58-77.
Namaziandost, E., Rezvani, E., & Polemikou, A. (2020). The impacts of visual input enhancement, semantic input enhancement, and input flooding on L2 vocabulary among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Cogent Education, 7(1). DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1726606.
Naseri, E., & Khodabandeh, F. (2019). Comparing the Impact of Audio-Visual Input Enhancement on Collocation Learning in Traditional and Mobile Learning Contexts. Applied Research on English Language, 8(3), 383-422. DOI: 10.22108/are.2019.115716.1434.
Nguyen, M.T.T., Pham, H.T., & Pham, T.M. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 45-67.
Park, E.S., & Nassif, L. (2014). Textual enhancement of two L2 Arabic forms: a classroom-based study. Language Awareness, 23(4), 334-352.
Perez, M.M., Peters, E., & Desmet, P. (2018). Vocabulary learning through viewing video: the effect of two enhancement techniques. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1-2), 1-26.
Petchko, K. (2011). Input Enhancement, Noticing, and Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition. Asian EFL Journal, 13(4), 228-255.
Rahimi, S., Ahmadian, M., Amerian, M., & Dowlatabadi, H.R. (2020). Comparing Accuracy and Durability Effects of Jigsaw Versus Input Flood Tasks on the Recognition of Regular Past Tense /-ed/. SAGE Open. 1-13.
Rassaei, E. (2015). Effects of Textual Enhancement and Input Enrichment on L2 Development. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 281-301.
Révész, A., Benton, L., Vasalou, A., Bunting, L., Segerstad, Y.H.A., Florea, A., Mihu, I.P., Gilabert, R., Parry, C. (2021). The Effects of Multiple-Exposure Textual Enhancement on Child L2 Learners’ Development in Derivational Morphology: A Multi-Site Study. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 901-930.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C.J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 631 – 678). Oxford UK: Blackwell.
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S.M., & Schmidt, R.W. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acqusition . In Gass, S.M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 247 – 267). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schimdt R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32), Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In Chan, W.M., Chin, K.N., Bhatt, S.K., & Walker, I. (Eds.), Perspectives on Individual Characteristics and Foreign Language Education (pp. 27-50). Berlin Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Seyedtajaddini, K. (2014). The Impact of Audio Input Enhancement on EFL Learners’ Grammar Learning from Varying Proficiency Levels. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1706-1712.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7(2), 118-132.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input Enhancement in Instructed SLA: Theoretical Bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179.
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). Explaining input enhancement: a MOGUL perspective. IRAL, 52(3), 253-281.
Szudarski, P., & Carter, R. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 245-265.
Tajeddin, Z., & Pezeshkim, M. (2014). Acquisition of Politeness Markers in an EFL Context: Impact of Input Enhancement and Output Tasks. RELC Journal, 45(3), 269-286.
Torkabad, M.G., & Fazilatfar, A.M. (2014). Textual Enhancement and Input Processing Effects on the Intake of Present and Past Simple Tenses [International Conference on Current Trends in ELT]. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 562-571.
Torkaman, A., & Mohamadi, Z. (2018). The effect of input enhancement and elaboration techniques on learning discourse markers: A gender role study. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 36(4), 261-275.
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2011). Input, Intake, and Consciousness: The Quest for a Theoretical Foundation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 497-528.
VanPatten, B. (2009). Processing Matters in Input Enhancement. In Piske, T., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input Matters in SLA (pp. 47 – 61). Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.
Wen, Z. (2023). Consciousness, Attention and Noticing. In Wen, Z., Sparks, R.L., Biedroń, A., & Teng, F.M. (Eds), Cognitive Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition: Theories, Assessment and Pedagogy (pp. 125-144). Berlin Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Winke, P.M. (2015). 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, 323-352.
Wu, M., & Ionin, T. (2023). The Effect of Input Flooding and Explicit Instruction on L2 Acquisition of English Inverse Scope. Language Teaching Research. DOI: 10.1177/13621688231153759.
Zanotto, M. (2014). The Effects of Textual Enhancement and Structured Input Activities on the Acquisition of the Italian Noun-Adjective Agreement. Italiano LinguaDue, 2, 67-109.
