input enhancement and the acquisition of english ... · english prepositions are notoriously...

47ÇÒÃÊÒÃÁ¹ØÉÂÈÒÊμÃ� ÁËÒÇÔ·ÂÒÅÑÂ¹àÃÈÇÃ »‚·Õè 7 ©ºÑº·Õè 3 »ÃÐ¨íÒà ×́Í¹ ¡Ñ¹ÂÒÂ¹ - ¸Ñ¹ÇÒ¤Á 2553

Input Enhancement and the Acquisition of English Prepositions of Thai Undergraduate Students ,

การทําใหขอมูลภาษาดีขึ้นและการเรียนรูคําบุพบทภาษาอังกฤษของนักศึกษาระดับปริญญาตรีไทย

Abstract This paper reported on the effects of input enhancement and consciousness-raising on the acquisition of English prepositions following some verbs and adjectives. The participants were Thai college students divided into three groups: one control group (CG) and two experimental groups (E1 and E2). The instruments were a pre-test and a post-test. Three mini-lessons were given within eight days. Three post-tests were administered within about eight weeks after the last lesson. One finding showed that, compared to the pre-test, all groups scored significantly higher in all post-tests. However, compared to the immediate post-test, the scores from the two delayed post-tests declined significantly, but the scores from the two delayed post-tests of each group were not significantly different from each other. The scores from each post-test of the three groups did not reveal any significant difference. Keywords : input enhancement, consciousness raising, English prepositions

บทคัดยอ บทความนีร้ายงานผลกระทบของการทําใหขอมลูภาษาดขีึน้และการกระตุนความตระหนักรู ตอการเรยีน

รูคาํบพุบทภาษาองักฤษทีต่ามหลงัคํากริยาและคาํคุณศัพท กลุมผูรวมในการศกึษานีค้อืนกัศึกษาระดบัปรญิญาตรี

แบงออกเปน 3 กลุม ไดแก กลุมควบคุม 1 กลุม และกลุมทดลอง 2 กลุม เคร่ืองมือที่ใชเก็บขอมูลไดแกขอสอบกอน

และหลังเรียน ผูเรียนไดรับการสอนในบทเรียนยอย เปนเวลา 3 ครั้ง ผูเรียนทําแบบทดสอบหลังเรียน 3 ครั้งภายใน

ระยะเวลา 8 สัปดาหหลังการเรียนคร้ังสุดทาย ผลการวิจัยพบวา ผลการสอบหลังเรียนทุกคร้ังของทุกกลุมสูงกวา

ผลการสอบกอนเรียนอยางมีนัยสําคัญทางสถิติ แตผลการสอบหลังเรียนคร้ังท่ี 2 และ 3 ตํ่ากวาคร้ังท่ี 1 อยางมีนัย

สําคัญ แตผลการสอบ 2 ครั้งหลังน้ี ไมแตกตางกันอยางมีนัยสําคัญ คะแนนสอบหลังเรียนแตละคร้ังของทั้ง 3 กลุม

ไมมีความแตกตางอยางมีนัยสําคัญทางสถิติ

คําสําคัญ : การทําใหขอมูลภาษาดีขึ้น, การกระตุนการตระหนักรู, การเรียนรูคําบุพบทภาษาอังกฤษ

Introduction

This research was funded by the Faculty of Humanities, Naresuan University, Fiscal Year 2009. This paper was presented at the 7th Asia TEFL & 29th Thailand TESOL International Conference 2009 at the Imperial Queen’s Park, Bangkok, Thailand, August 7-9, 2009.

1

1

2

2

Watana Padgateวัฒนา พัดเกตุ

48 ÇÒÃÊÒÃÁ¹ØÉÂÈÒÊμÃ� ÁËÒÇÔ·ÂÒÅÑÂ¹àÃÈÇÃ »‚·Õè 7 ©ºÑº·Õè 3 »ÃÐ¨íÒà ×́Í¹ ¡Ñ¹ÂÒÂ¹ - ¸Ñ¹ÇÒ¤Á 2553

Input, Form Instruction and Input Enhancement It has been generally accepted that input is an essential element for the ac-quisition of both first (L1) and second (L2) languages, and language learning cannot take place without input. However, it is still controversial about what kind of input is necessary. Scholars seem to agree that for L1 acquisition, mere positive evidence is enough for children to discover the system of the language they are acquiring and al-lows them to judge what is possible and not possible in their own language. Similarly, it has been traditionally believed that one can learn an L2 by immersing himself/herself in the community where the language is spoken and where they can get abundant exposure to the target language. In particular, Krashen (1985, 1989) maintains that the best way to help L2 learners “acquire” a language is to provide the learners with sufficient comprehensible input. However, things seem to be more complicated in L2 learning. While Krashen (1992, p. 409) believes that form-focused instruction is not necessary for L2 learning and that its effect is “peripheral and fragile,” other scholars (e.g. Celce-Murcia, 1992; White, 1991) have found that some forms of instruction, probably through the provision of negative evidence, can help learners to achieve a high level of proficiency

It has been frequently observed that even those who learn an L2 in the target community for an extended period of time, such as in an immersion school or in a natural setting where the target language is used, still produce grammatical errors of some forms (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Having been exposed to the positive input for a lengthy period of time, they may be fluent in the language but still show some errors and traces of non-nativeness in their output. This observation allows us to know that language learning does not occur automatically only by being exposed to the language input. In addition, many research studies (e.g. White, 1991) have indicated that positive evidence alone is not enough to allow L2 learners to discover the target language system. Schmidt (1990) also argues that consciousness, of some form, plays an active role in L2 learning and that L2 learning cannot take place without learners’ noticing of the input they are exposed to. Therefore, some scholars hypothesize that L2 learners will do better if some of their attention has been drawn to language forms in a communicative and meaningful context (Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Long & Rob-inson, 1998). Sharwood-Smith (1993) also agrees that learners’ consciousness should be raised, and one way to do this is to enhance the input, making it salient enough for the learners to notice so that they can acquire it later.

However, research results on the effects of input enhancement on form learning are mixed and contradictory. For example, White (1998) found that typo-graphically enhanced input in reading passages could help French-speaking learners of English to improve their use of possessive determiners, although there was little difference between the experimental group and the control group, which received no such enhanced input. Lee (2007) also found that textual enhancement facilitated


learning of the target feature, English passive voice. Similarly, Simard (2009) exam-ined the effects of different kinds of enhancement and found that learners receiving capital letter enhancement obtained the highest scores and performed significantly better than those receiving other enhancement formats. However, Kim (2006) found that typographical enhancement alone did not help the learners to recognize the form and meaning of vocabulary studied. In addition, De Santis’s study (2008) indicated that although textual enhancement helped the learners to be aware of the presence of the target form (third person singular -s) in reading, it did not facilitate learners’ oral production of this target feature. This is in line with Izumi’s experimental study (2002) which investigated the effects of output-induced activity and input enhancement on the acquisition of English relativization. He found that exposure to enhanced input did not result in learners’ acquisition of the target feature. Izumi also called for the reexamination of the construct of noticing. In conclusion, previous studies on input enhancement have revealed mixed results. (For a more detailed review, see Han et al., 2008.) Han et al. also note that “this lack of congruence in the findings is arguably a natural consequence stimulated by the numerous methodological idiosyncracies char-acterizing the individual studies” (p. 600). The issues of whether form-focused instruction is necessary for learners to acquire language forms and, if so, how the language forms should be presented have been extensively debated, and research results are still mixed and controversial. For these reasons, more studies are needed for better understanding of this issue. Prepositions and the acquisition of English prepositions English prepositions are notoriously difficult to learn, and even ESL/EFL students with high level of English proficiency have difficulty with the use of prepo-sitions (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999). According to Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, a reason for this difficulty is that prepositions do not always match up well from one language to another. For Thai students, English prepositions can be especially difficult because there are many instances where a preposition is needed in English when it is not needed in Thai.

Example: English I waited for you. Thai ฉัน คอย เธอ

(Chan koy ter) I waited you.In other cases, a preposition is needed in English, but in Thai a different part of speech is needed.

Example English Mother made this cake for me. Thai แม ทํา เคก ให ฉัน

(Mae tum cake hai chan) Mother made cake give me.


Kao (2001) distinguishes pseudo-prepositions from genuine prepositions, explaining that the former type (as in rely on, or wait for) is only dummy grammatical forms and has no real meaning in the sentence, while the latter type may be used to show spatial relations or movements between words in a sentence (as in on/under/near/beside the desk or went in/toward/through/by the building) and the change of one preposition to another will essentially change the meaning. Since pseudo-prepositions are arbitrary and have no form-meaning relationship, Kao asserts that these preposi-tions are hard to learn and usually take quite a long time to learn because learners need to rely heavily on their memorization and storage. Kao’s study (2001) suggests that formal instruction could improve learners’ performance of these language features.

The acquisition of English prepositions has been studied by some scholars. For example, Kao (2001) examined the acquisition of English prepositional verbs by Japanese EFL learners focusing on the acquisition of prepositional stranding and pied piping and found that learners tended to omit prepositions where they felt those prepositions were communicatively redundant. Besides, the learners obviously chose preposition stranding and used pied-piping more in relative clauses than in questions.

Due to the nature of pseudo-prepositions as mentioned above, teachers often find it hard to introduce these prepositions to ESL/EFL learners. No rules can be stated, nor will explicit instruction fulfill the learners’ needs and help them to acquire these prepositions. For this reason, providing the learners with a great number of enhanced instances of prepositional uses to allow the learners to get as much expo-sure to the target features as possible may help draw the learners’ attention to these features (Kao, 2001) and may eventually lead to the acquisition of these prepositions. Furthermore, encouraging students to notice these linguistic features and raising their consciousness of the existence of these features may help strengthen their learning. This research was then conducted to investigate the effects of input enhancement on the acquisition of English pseudo-prepositions used after verbs and adjectives of Thai college students.

According to the Thai-Thai dictionary of the Royal Academy (1999), “ให” /hai/ (literally means give) is categorized as a verb or an auxiliary of obligation, not a preposition. These differences in the use of preposition between Thai and English may result in the incorrect use of English preposition for Thai students. Moreover, con-trary to prepositions of time, place, and direction, prepositions after some verbs and adjectives are rather arbitrary and cannot be explained by explicit rules. The source of input can add more difficulty to ESL/EFL learners due to the language variation of English native speakers to whom the learners are exposed (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999). For example, an English native speaker may say “go out to lunch,” while another may say “go out for lunch.”


MethodParticipants

The participants of this study were 100 fourth-year engineering students of a national comprehensive university in the lower north of Thailand enrolled in two sec-tions of the Reading Academic English course. Only two sections were used owing to some administration constraints. One section consisting of 36 students was assigned as an experimental group two (E2). The other section consisted of 64 students. Both groups were given a pre-test on the target features before the treatment was con-ducted. With an effort to divide the students in the larger group into two statistically equal groups, the scores of the students in this group were then ranked, matched, and assigned to two sub-groups. The result was one group consisting of 31 students was randomly assigned as the control group (CG), and the other with 33 students was assigned as the experimental group one (E1). During the instruction session, CG and E1 studied in the same classroom but were asked to sit on different sides of the room. The mean score of each group was as follows: CG (M = 8.90, SD = 3.00), E1 (M = 8.76, SD = 2.48), E2 (M = 8.83, SD = 2.42). To ascertain the comparability of the three groups, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the pre-test mean scores of these groups, and no significant difference was found (p > .05, F = .025) indicating that these groups were equal at the outset.

Target features The target features of this study were pseudo-prepositions (Kao, 2001) re-quired after some verbs and adjectives. These did not include prepositions in phrasal verbs which allow more than one acceptable possibility (e.g. look after, look for) and prepositions of time, place, and direction. (See Appendix for the list of prepositional verbs targeted in this study.) Some of these verbs requiring pseudo-prepositions were taken from reading passages in the students’ textbook for class. Initially, 70 verbs and adjectives were included in the pre-test, but after the pre-test only 40 words (20 verbs and 20 adjectives) which were answered the least correctly by the students were chosen as the target expressions.

Instruments The instruments for this study were:

1. Three sets of hand-outs These hand-outs consisted of 40 sentences with the 40 target expressions. The sentences in the hand-outs were taken from many sources such as Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary, dictionary.reference.com, and dictionary.cambridge.org.


2. A pre-test and a post-test The multiple-choice format was employed for the pre- and post-tests of this study. The pre-test consisted of 70 sentences (35 verbs and 35 adjectives). However, the test scores were calculated from the 40 items that the students answered the least correctly for this indicated that these were the prepositions with which this group of students had the most problem. These 40 items (20 verbs and 20 adjectives) were used in the three administrations of the post-test. The data for computing internal consistency reliability was taken from the third administration of the post-test (the second delayed post-test), and the alpha coefficient was .92, indicating that the same characteristics of the test were measured to a very high degree.

Procedure As stated earlier, the students participating in this study were enrolled in the Reading Academic English course, so the main objective of this course was to improve the students’ reading ability for academic purposes. However, the researcher asked for permission from the course instructor to add the instruction of prepositions to their regular class. In order to encourage the students to participate in all sessions of the study, they were informed that if they participated in all activities including a pre-test, three mini-lessons, and three post-tests, they would be awarded extra five points added to their total scores for the course. These three mini-lessons, taking about 30 minutes each within eight days, were taught by the researcher using the translation method. As Han et al (2008) state, “Whatever its elaboration and explicitness, input enhancement is promised on the notion that learners must comprehend what they read or hear be-fore their attention can be drawn to form within the input” (p. 599). Keeping this in mind, I assumed that translation was an obvious way to help the students understand the target input.

In each teaching session, the students were given a hand-out consisting of 40 sentences, each with a target expression. CG and E1, who studied in the same class-room but sat on different sides of the room, received a hand-out with the same set of sentences, but the target features in the hand-out of E1 were bold-typed. The instructor (researcher) went over the sentences one by one with the class. For each sentence, he asked the students if they knew the meaning of each target verb or adjective in the sentence and then translated the sentence for the students without mentioning anything about the preposition after each verb or adjective. The students in the E2 received the same set of hand-out with the target features bold-typed similar to the hand-out that the E1 received. However, in the E2, the students’ attention was also drawn to those target expressions. To do this, the teacher asked them to notice the preposition used after each verb or adjective. In this sense, this method is similar to that used by Izumi (2002) who explicitly mentioned the highlighted form to the learners.


CG E1 E2

M SD M SD M SDPre-test 8.90 3.00 8.76 2.48 8.83 2.42Post-test I (Immediate) 28.42 10.44 28.55 10.78 31.06 7.36Delayed post-test I 18.71 10.33 15.97 11.19 19.69 9.35Delayed post-test II 19.06 10.65 18.79 10.40 19.47 8.37

The immediate post-test was given three days after the last lesson. The first delayed post-test was given two weeks after the immediate post-test, and the second delayed post-test five weeks after the first delayed post-test.

Findings The mean scores of the pre- and three post-tests of each group are shown in Table 1.

Table 1Mean Scores of the Pre-test and Post-Tests of Groups (Total = 40 points)

Group

To examine if the pre- and post-test scores of each group were different from one another, One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was applied. Table 2 shows the result of the control group (CG), which reveals that there was a significant difference between the pre-test and the three post-tests.

A post hoc analysis was then applied using the Scheffe test, and the results revealed that all three post-test scores (28.42, 18.17, and 19.06) were significantly higher than the pre-test score (8.90). However, the immediate post-test score (28.42) was sig-nificantly higher than the two delayed post-test scores (18.71 and 19.06 respectively) while the two delayed post-test scores were not significantly different from each other.

__________________________________________________________________Source df Sum of square Mean of squares F__________________________________________________________________Between groups 3 5907.161 1969.054 23.297*Within groups 120 10142.516 84.521 Total 123 16049.677 __________________________________________________________________*p < .05

Table 2Analysis of Variance for Scores of CG for the pre-test and three post-tests


Similar to the control group, a significant difference among the pre- and post-test scores was found in the experimental group one (E1), which was exposed to the enhanced input alone, as shown in Table 3

Table 4Analysis of Variance for Scores of E2 for the pre-test and three post-tests______________________________________________________________Source df Sum of square Mean of squares F________________________________________________________________ Between groups 3 8894.472 2964.824 54.518*Within group 140 7613.500 54.382 Total 143 16507.972 _________________________________________________________________*p < .05

Table 3Analysis of Variance for Scores of E1 for the pre-test and three post-tests___________________________________________________________________Source df Sum of square Mean of squares F___________________________________________________________________Between groups 3 6645.242 2215.081 24.896*Within group 128 11388.727 88.974 Total 131 18033.970 ___________________________________________________________________*p < .05

The Scheffe test wa s applied for the post hoc analysis, and the result indicated that for E1 all three post-test scores (28.55, 15.97, and 18.79) were significantly higher than the pre-test score (8.76). However, the immediate post-test score (28.55) was significantly higher than the two delayed post-test scores (15.97 and 18.79), but the two delayed post-test scores were not significantly different from each other.

Finally, the comparison of the pre- and post-test scores of the experimental group two (E2), which was exposed to both enhanced input and consciousness rais-ing, also revealed a result similar to that of the other groups. That is, a statistically significant difference was found among the four test results as seen in Table 4.


A post-hoc analysis for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe test revealed that for E2 the immediate post-test score (31.06) was significantly higher than the pre-test (8.83) and the two delayed post-test scores (19.69 and 19.47). However, while the scores of the two delayed post-tests (19.69 and 19.47) were significantly higher than the pre-test score (8.83), they were not significantly different from each other at the .05 level. In conclusion, the results above clearly show that the learners in both the control group (CG) and the experimental groups (E1 and E2) made a statistically significant improvement in the use of the target language features, that is, prepositions after some verbs and adjectives. It can be reasonably assumed, then, that these learners acquired the use of these prepositions. As can be seen in Table 1, at the onset of the study, from the total of 40 points, the students in all groups scored only about 22 per cent for the pre-test (scores ranging from 8.76 to 8.90). However, after the experimental period they scored significantly higher to approximately over 70 per cent with scores ranging from 28.42 (CG) to 31.06 (E2). The results also showed that the scores of the two delayed post-tests dropped dramatically from the immediate post-test to below 50 per cent with the scores ranging from 15.97 (delayed post-test I – E1) to 19.69 (delayed post-test I – E2). This fact may reflect some limitation of the effect of formal instruc-tion, either through mere exposure to enhanced input (as in E1) or through exposure plus manipulation of the input, on the acquisition of this kind of linguistic features. However, it should be noted that the scores from the second delayed post-test of all groups administered over a month after the first delayed post-test did not decrease significantly further from the first delayed post-test and were still significantly higher than the pre-test scores. This may indicate some positive impact of formal instruction.

Since the learners in all three groups made progress in their learning of these target prepositions, the post-test scores of these groups were then compared to de-termine if the groups receiving the textually enhanced input scored higher than the control group. Table 5 shows the mean scores for the immediate post-test of all groups. As can be seen, the E2 scored the highest followed by the E1 and the CG respectively. To test the statistical significance of these differences, an ANOVA was performed on the data.


Table 5Mean Scores of the Immediate Post-Test of All Groups (Total = 40 points)_________________________________________________________________ Group _____________________________ CG E1 E2_________________________________________________________________ Mean 28.42 28.55 31.06 SD 10.44 10.78 7.36_________________________________________________________________ The comparison of the mean scores for the immediate post-test of all groups employing an ANOVA yielded an F ratio of .833, which indicated that there was no significant difference between groups (p > .05) as shown in Table 6.

Table 6Analysis of Variance for Immediate Post-Test Scores of All Groups_________________________________________________________________ Source df Sum of square Mean of squares F_________________________________________________________________ Between groups 2 152.571 76.285 .833Within groups 97 8885.619 91.604 Total 99 9038.190 _________________________________________________________________ p > .05

Table 7 shows the means scored for the delayed post-test I of all groups. The result indicates that the E2 scored the highest followed by the CG and the E1 respectively. However, the comparison of the mean scores using an ANOVA revealed no significant difference between groups (p > .05) as seen in Table 8


Table 7Mean Scores for the Delayed Post-Test I of All Groups (Total = 40 points)___________________________________________________________________ Group ___________________________________________ CG E1 E2___________________________________________________________________Mean 18.71 15.97 19.69 SD 10.33 11.19 9.35___________________________________________________________________

Table 8Analysis of Variance for the Delayed Post-Test I Scores of All Groups__________________________________________________________________Source df Sum of square Mean of squares F_________________________________________________________________Between groups 2 252.444 126.222 1.192Within groups 97 10268.996 105.866 Total 99 10521.440 __________________________________________________________________p > .05

Finally, Table 9 shows the mean scores for the second delayed post-test of all groups, and it can be seen that the E2 scored the highest followed by the CG and E1 respectively. However, the ANOVA result did not reveal any significant difference between groups (p > .05) as shown in Table 10.

Table 9Mean Scores for the Delayed Post-Test II of All Groups (Total = 40 points)_________________________________________________________________ Group _________________________________ CG E1 E2_____________________________________________________________ Mean 19.06 18.79 19.47 SD 10.65 10.40 8.37___________________________________________________________________


Table 10Analysis of Variance for Delayed Post-Test II Scores of All Groups__________________________________________________________________Source df Sum of square Mean of squares F__________________________________________________________________Between groups 2 8.202 4.101 .043Within groups 97 9318.358 96.066 Total 99 9326.560 ___________________________________________________________________p > .05

Table 11 shows the summary of the findings indicating the mean scores of the pre-test and the three post-tests of all groups. Mean scores (M) sharing a common superscript are not significantly different (p > .05) by the Scheffe test.

Table 11Summary of the ResultsFeaturing the Mean Scores of the Pre-test and Post-Tests of Groups_________________________________________________________________ Tests _______________________________________________Groups Pre-test Post-test I Post-test II Post-test III (Immediate) (Delayed I) (Delayed II)_________________________________________________________________CG M 8.901 28.422 18.71a, 3 19.06a,4 SD 3.00 10.44 10.33 10.65E1 M 8.761 28.552 15.97b, 3 18.79b,4 SD 2.48 10.78 11.19 10.40E2 M 8.831 31.062 19.69c, 3 19.47c,4 SD 2.42 7.36 9.35 8.37

To conclude, the scores for the three post-tests of all the three groups were not significantly different. The groups that received textually enhanced input did not fare better than the group that received no such input, and the group receiving both textually enhanced input together with consciousness raising was statistically no better than the group that received no enhanced input and the group that received enhanced input alone. In other words, textual enhancement of input did not seem to bring about any difference among the groups.


Discussions One interesting, and probably surprising, finding is that all student groups in this study made a significant improvement in the use of the target features, that is, prepositions following some verbs and prepositions, at the end of the study compared to the pre-test scores, and this ability lasted until after the third post-test, given more than a month after the immediate post-test. This shows the importance of language input and exposure to the language as a necessary element for language acquisition. On the one hand, the results of this study support many previous studies (e.g. De Santis, 2008; Lee, 2007; Simard, 2009) in that input enhancement and consciousness-raising can help the learners acquire the target language features. On the other hand, the findings also show that the groups that received input enhancement and input enhancement plus consciousness-raising did not perform better than the group that did not, which is in accordance with White’s observation (1998) that typographical enhancement may not yield major benefit for the learner. However, this fact may be insufficient to conclude that input enhancement and consciousness-raising are not helpful or do not have any impact on acquiring grammatical features. In contrast, it may indicate that some linguistic features, especially those the use of which is arbitrary and is not based on explicit rules, may be acquired by mere exposure to the positive input and that any manipulation of the input, including enhancement, is not necessary. The target lin-guistic feature in this study is prepositions following some verbs and adjectives. These prepositions do not have lexical elements attached to their use and are then merely as grammatical particles without any specific meanings. Therefore, the use of these prepositions is rather straightforward, unlike some other language features (e.g. tense, voice, or articles) which convey more lexical meanings and hence complicating their use and making the exposure to the input, though textually enhanced, not sufficient for the learner to acquire these linguistic features as easily.

In addition, no significant difference of the post-test scores among the three groups may be due to the fact that the input presented during the treatment period was in the form of isolated sentences, not in a reading passage. This may make the target feature, whether it is enhanced or not, salient and easy for the students to notice. In contrast, target grammatical features presented in longer stretches, as in a reading passage, may be harder to notice.

Conclusion The result of this study corresponds to what was found in White’s study (1998) when she found that input enhancement led to improvement in the experimental group, though this improvement was not significantly different from that of the control group. Although the results from this study are not suggestive about the distinguished impact of input enhancement through printing types in that this type of enhancement did not cause any significant differences among the different groups of learners, one fact


abut L2 learning is confirmed. That is, positive evidence is important for L2 learning especially when the use of the linguistic features lack explainable reasons, like those prepositions following some verbs or adjectives, which are the features investigated in this study.

As Han et al (2008) note, the mixed results of research studies on the effects of textual enhancement may result from the different designs, different ways of pre-senting the target features, and different ways of assessing the learner’s improvement. Moreover, these inconclusive results may be due to different target language features studied in different studies. The effect of input enhancement and consciousness-raising may be influenced by the nature of language features. In other words, input enhance-ment may have an effect on the acquisition of some types of language features but not others. Researchers may then need to keep investigating more carefully on this issue as this may provide deeper insights into the understanding of the contexts where a particular study on this issue is conducted and possible effects of input enhancement and consciousness raising on the acquisition of different linguistic features with dif-ferent natures. Research synthesizing previous studies related to the impact of input enhancement and consciousness raising may be needed. This research should try to classify the types of grammar on which input enhancement and consciousness raising seem to and do not seem to have an impact so that we can gain more understanding about the interaction between the nature of linguistic features and the effect of this kind of instruction.

Regarding teaching implications, it is undeniable that input is necessary for L2 learning. However, it seems that positive unmodified input may have some limita-tions to help learners automatically acquire the target language features, especially in a natural language learning setting. The fact that the post-test scores of the learners in the control group, who received neither input modifications in the form of textual enhancement nor consciousness-raising remark, in this study were significantly than the pretest score and were not significantly different from those of the learners in the experimental groups is probably not sufficient to reject the potential impact of input enhancement and consciousness-raising. This improvement may be due to the fact that the teaching session in this study was conducted in a classroom setting. In Thailand, an English language classroom usually apply a structure-based teaching approach, with which Thai students are familiar and where they expect to learn language forms (Lightbown & Spada, 2006).For this reason, they may tend to notice the language features presented in the input though it is not enhanced. Besides, the target features were presented in isolated sentences, and this should make it easier for the students to notice. In other classroom situations, for example, where communication is emphasized or where the target features are presented in a less salient way such as in a reading passage, some forms of input enhancement probably together with consciousness raising should assist the learners to learn the target language features better.


References

Celce-Murcia, M. (1992). Formal Grammar Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), pp. 409-411.Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The English grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA : Heinle & Heinle.De Santis, P. (2008). Text Enhancement and the Acquisition of Eng lish Verbal Inflection -s by L1 Haitian Creole Speakers. Applied Language Learning, 18 (1/2), 24-49.Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-11), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gascoigne, C. (2006). Explicit input enhancement: Effects on target and non-target aspects of second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 551-564Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597-618.Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hy poth esis: An Experimental Study on ESL Relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1402981251).Kao, R. (2001). Where have the prepositions gone? A study of English prepositional verbs and input enhancement in instructed SLA. IRAL, 39, 195-215.Kim, Y. (2006). Effects of Input Elaboration on Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading by Korean Learners of English as a Foreign Language. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 341-373.Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Krashen, S. D. (1989). “We acauire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis.” Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464. Krashen, S. D. (1992). Formal Grammar Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 409-411.Lee, S. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87-118.


Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. InC. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, (p. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Royal Academy. (1999). Dictionary – Royal Academy, 1999 Edition. Nanmee Books : Bangkok. (Written in Thai)Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2), 165-179.Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37(1), 124-135. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2008.06.005; (AN 36896617) Database: Education Research CompleteWhite, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancementstudy. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition. Some effects ofpositive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133-161.

AppendixPrepositions after verbs and adjectives investigated in this study

Verbs argue with, belong to, complain about, concentrate on, consist of, deal with, depend on, focus on, insist on, laugh at, listen to, participate in, rely on, respond to, result in, shout at, smile at, strive for; succeed in, think about

Adjectives to be amazed at, to be angry at, to get bored with, to be capable of, to be concerned about, to be dependent on, to be excited about, to be good at, to be jealous of, to be kind to, to be married to, to be pleased with, to be polite to, to be proud of, to be responsible for, to be similar to, to be sorry for, to be tired of, to be scared of, to be worried about

input enhancement and the acquisition of english ... · english prepositions are notoriously...

Documents