The present study investigates whether textual enhancement had any effects on grammar learning (tag questions) and reading comprehension, and whether the types of tag question contributed to the benefits of textual enhancement. The study employed a pretest–posttest design with three treatment sessions. The target forms were English tag questions, which were grouped into three types: auxiliary (AUX), do-support (DO), and modal (MODAL). Participants were 69 Japanese high school students, who were assigned into three experimental groups (n = 52) and a control group (n = 17). The control group received unenhanced passages, whereas three experimental groups received passages, each of which included one of the target forms visually manipulated. To examine the effects of textual enhancement, the participants performed a multiple-choice grammar task consisting of 18 items. Reading comprehension was assessed using a 10-item multiple-choice test based on information from the passage. The results showed (1) that the effectiveness of textual enhancement on learning the target forms appeared in one enhanced group (Group 3) but it did not appear in the other two groups; (2) that textual enhancement did not detract from reading comprehension; and (3) that enhancing specific types of the target forms seemed to facilitate Group 3’s learning, but did not have any effects for the other groups.
AlanenR. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In SchmidtR. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report #9) (pp. 259–302). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
2.
AldersonJ.C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaddeleyA. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In WenZ.E.MotaM.B.McNeilA. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
4.
BarcroftJ. (2003). Distinctiveness and bidirectional effects in input enhancement for vocabulary learning. Applied Language Learning, 13, 47–73.
5.
BrownR. (1973). Development of the first language in the human species. American Psychologist, 28, 97–106.
6.
Celce-MurciaM.Larsen-FreemanD. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
7.
CrouseJ.IdsteinP. (1972). Effects of encoding cues on prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 309–313.
8.
CurrieM.ChiramaneeT. (2010). The effect of the multiple-choice item format on the measurement of knowledge of language structure. Language Testing, 27, 471–491.
9.
DennisM.SugarJ.WhitakerH.A. (1982). The acquisition of tag questions. Child Development, 53, 1254–1257.
10.
DoughtyC. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
11.
DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
FosterJ.J. (1979). The use of visual cues in text. In KolersP.A.WrolstadM.E.BoumaH. (Eds.), Processing of visible language (pp. 189–203). New York: Plenum Press.
13.
FowlerR.BarkerA. (1974). Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 358–364.
14.
GassS.SveticsI.LemelinS. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53, 497–545.
15.
GilabertR. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Barcelona, Spain.
16.
GlynnS.M.Di VestaF.J. (1979). Control of prose processing via institutional and typographical cues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 595–603.
17.
HanZ.ParkE.S.CombsC. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 597–618.
18.
HartleyJ.BartlettS.BranthwaiteA. (1980). Underlining can make a difference: Sometimes. The Journal of Educational Research, 73, 218–224.
19.
HershbergerW. (1964). Self-evaluation responding and typographical cueing: Techniques for programming self-instructional reading materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 288–296.
20.
HershbergerW.A.TerryD.F. (1965). Typographical cuing in conventional and programmed texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 55–60.
21.
IzumiS. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
22.
JourdenaisR.OtaM.StaufferS.BoysonB.DoughtyC. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In SchmidtR. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report #9) (pp. 182–209). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
23.
KimY. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 341–373.
24.
KulhavyR. (1972). Effects of embedding orienting stimuli in a prose passage. Psychonomic Science, 28, 213–214.
25.
LaBrozziR.M. (2016). The effects of textual enhancement type on L2 form recognition and reading comprehension in Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 20, 75–91.
26.
Larsen-FreemanD.LongM. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
27.
LeeS.K. (2007) Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.
28.
LeeS.K.HuangH.T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307–331.
29.
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 (Technical Report #9) (pp. 217–258). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
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.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.
32.
LogieR.H.CowanN. (2015). Perspectives on working memory: Introduction to the special issue. Memory & Cognition, 43, 315–324.
33.
LorchR. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209–234.
34.
MalickaA. (2014). The role of task sequencing in monologic oral production. In BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 71–93). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
35.
MarksM.B. (1966). Improve reading through better format. The Journal of Educational Research, 60, 147–151.
36.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN.P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In HealyA.F.Bourne, Jr.L.E. (Eds.), Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
MoravcsikJ.E.HealyA.F. (1998). Highlighting important words leads to poorer comprehension. In HealyA.F.Bourne, Jr.L.E. (Eds.), Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention (pp. 259–272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Morgan-ShortK.HeilJ.Botero-MoriartyA.EbertS. (2012). Allocation of attention to second language form and meaning: Issues of think-alouds and depth of processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 659–685.
39.
OrtegaL. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
40.
ParkE.S. (2004). Constraints of implicit focus on form: Insights from a study of input enhancement. Teachers College, Columbia University Working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 42. Available at: http://www.tc.edu/tesolalwebjournal/Park.pdf (accessed May 2017).
41.
PienemannM. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
42.
RobinsonP. (1995). Attention, memory, and the ‘Noticing’ Hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.
43.
RobinsonP. (1997a). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.
44.
RobinsonP. (1997b). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247.
45.
RobinsonP. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions: An aptitude complex / ability differentiation framework for SLA research. In SelinkerL.LakshmananU. (Eds.), Second Language Research, 17, 368–392. Special Issue on Explanation and Scientific Method in SLA Research: Festschrift for Paul van Buren.
46.
RobinsonP. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In DoughtyC.LongM.H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.
47.
RobinsonP. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.
48.
Robinson (2012). Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes, and aptitude test development. In PawlakM. (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching, second language learning and teaching (pp. 57–77). New York: Springer.
SachsR.SuhB.R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conventional interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 197–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
Sharwood SmithM. (1981). Consciousness raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–168.
52.
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
53.
Sharwood SmithM. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.
54.
SimardD. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124–135.
55.
SimardD.FoucambertD. (2013). Observing noticing while reading in L2. In BergsleithnerJ.M.FrotaS.N.YoshikawaJ.K. (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 25–38). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
56.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
57.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
SchmidtR.FrotaS. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In DayR. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language learning (pp. 237–322). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
59.
TakahashiM. (2014). Features and use of tag questions and invariant tags by Japanese speakers of English. In: RuddickM. (Ed.), Working Papers form the Near Language Conference 2014 (pp. 13–31). Niigata: JALT.
60.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
61.
WhiteJ. (1998). Getting the learner’s attention. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
62.
WilliamsJ. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.
63.
WinkeP.M. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension: A modified replication of Lee (2007) with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 323–352.
64.
WongW. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17–45.
