Previous research investigating the effectiveness of textual enhancement as a tool to draw adult second language (L2) learners’ attention to the targeted linguistic form has consistently produced mixed results. This article examines how L2 form recognition and reading comprehension are affected by different types of textual enhancement. Participants (n = 109) in the experimental group read a passage that contained one type of textual enhancement (underline, bold, italics, change in font size, use of capital letters or change of font) on the target structure (Spanish present and preterit tense) morphemes. A control group (n = 16) read the same passage without any type of enhancement. To measure L2 form recognition, all groups completed pre- and post-tests consisting of an L2 to first language (L1) translation task. To assess the effects of enhancement type on L2 reading comprehension, the participants completed a 40 item multiple choice test with questions focusing on form or meaning from the reading. Results for the present study revealed that one type of textual enhancement was better than others with regard to facilitating L2 form recognition, and that comprehension was not hindered by enhancement, regardless of enhancement type.
AlanenR. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In: SchmidtR. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–299). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
2.
BarcroftJ. (2003). Distinctiveness and bidirectional effects in input enhancement for vocabulary learning. Applied Language Learning, 13, 133–159.
3.
BerneJ. (2000). The impact of enhanced comprehensibility on conscious attention to form and content. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 4, 133–159.
4.
BowlesM. (2003). The effects of textual input enhancement on language learning: An online/offline study of fourth-semester Spanish students. In: KempchinskiP.PinerosP. (Eds.), Theory, practice, and acquisition: Papers from the 6th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium and the 5th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 359–411). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
5.
CarrollS.SwainM. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.
6.
ChaudronC. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners’ processing input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1–14.
7.
De SantisP. (2008). Text enhancement and the acquisition of English verbal inflection –s by L1 Haitian Creole speakers. Applied Language Learning, 18, 27–49.
8.
DoughtyC. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
DoughtyC.VarelaE. (1998). Communicative focus on forms. In: DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In: DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
EllisN. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19, 100–121.
12.
EllisN. (2007). Learned attention in language acquisition: Blocking, salience, and cue competition. In EuroCogSci07, Proceedings of the second European cognitive science conference, Delphi, Greece, 119–124.
13.
FosterJ.ColesP. (1977). An experimental study of typographic cueing in printed materials. Ergonomics, 20, 57–66.
14.
FotosS. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323–351.
15.
FotosS.EllisR. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.
16.
FowlerR.BarkerA. (1974). Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 358–364.
17.
GascoigneC. (2006). Explicit input enhancement: Effects on target and non-target aspects of second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 551–564.
18.
GevaE.RyanE. (1993). Linguistic and cognitive correlates of academic skills in first and second languages. Language Learning, 43, 5–42.
19.
GreensladeT.BoudenL.SanzC. (1999). Attention to form and content in processing L2 reading texts: A conceptual replication study of VanPatten 1991. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 3, 65–90.
20.
HanZ.ParkE.S.CombsC. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 1–22.
21.
HarringtonM.SawyerM. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.
22.
HershbergerW.TerryD. (1965). Typographical cueing in conventional and programed texts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 55–60.
23.
IzumiS. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
24.
JourdenaisR.MitsuhikoO.StaufferS.BoysonB.DoughtyC. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing?: A think aloud protocol analysis. In: SchmidtR. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183–216). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
25.
KimY. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 341–373.
26.
LeeS. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.
27.
LeeJ.VanPattenB. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
LeemanJ.ArteagoitiaI.FridmanB.DoughtyC. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In: SchmidtR. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 217–258). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
29.
LeowR. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’ comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8, 151–82.
30.
LeowR. (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.
31.
LeowR. (2009). Input enhancement and L2 grammatical development: What the research reveals. In: Watzinger-TharpJ.KatzS. (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 grammar: Theoretical approaches and their application in the L2 classroom (pp. 16–34). Boston, MA: Heinle.
32.
LeowR.EgiT.NuevoA.TsaiY. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13, 1–16.
33.
MarksM. (1966). Improve reading through better format. The Journal of Educational Research, 60, 147–150.
34.
MeiselJ. (2011). First and second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
NassajiH. (1999). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 385–402.
36.
NassajiH.FotosS. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.
37.
NassajiH.FotosS. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.
38.
OverstreetM. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229–258.
39.
OverstreetM. (2002). The effect of textual enhancement on second language learner reading comprehension and form recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
40.
ParkE. (2004). Constraints on implicit focus on form: Insights from a study of input enhancement. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 4, 1–22.
41.
ReindersH.ChoM. (2010). Extensive listening practice and input enhancement using mobile phones: Encouraging out-of-class learning with mobile phones. TESOL-EJ, 14, 1–7.
42.
RobinsonP. (1995). Attention, memory and the ‘noticing hypothesis.’Language Learning, 45, 283–331.
43.
RottS. (2007). The effect of frequency of input-enhancements on word learning and text comprehension. Language Learning, 57, 165–199.
44.
SagarraN.EllisN. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing verbal morphology: Language experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 261–290.
45.
SchmidtR. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In: SchmidtR. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
46.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Sharwood SmithM. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.
48.
Sharwood SmithM. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.
49.
ShebilskeW.RotondoJ. (1981). Typographical and spatial cues that facilitate learning from textbooks. Visible Language, 15, 41–54.
50.
ShookD. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57–93.
51.
SimardD. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124–135.
52.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–310.
53.
VanPattenB. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
54.
VanPattenB. (2002). Processing the content of input-processing and processing instruction research: A response to Dekeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning, 52, 825–831.
55.
VanPattenB. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
56.
WalterC. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 315–339.
57.
WhiteJ. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In: DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge/London: Cambridge University Press.
58.
WinkeP. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension: A modified replication of Lee, 2007, with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 323–352.
59.
WongW. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.
60.
WongW. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 109–132.
61.
WongW. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
