Attention, Awareness, and Foreign Language Behavior
Authors: Leow Ronald P. 
Published: July 2005

The 1990s have witnessed a substantial increase of empirical studies in the secondforeign language (L2) classroom setting that have in some way addressed L2 learning under a so‐called form‐focused perspective. A review of many of these studies reveals that attempts are usually made through some kind of instructional treatment or exposure designed t o draw learners' attention to and subsequent noticing of targeted linguistic forms in the L2 data or input. Strands of research include input flooding, input enhancement, implicit/explicit learning conditions, processing instruction, explicit/implicit feedback, and classroom‐based tasks. The theoretical premise underlying these studies is that some form of attention (and awareness) to linguistic data is crucial for L2 learning to take place, a premise not addressed methodologically in many of the studies (cf Leow, 1999a, for a methodological review of studies conducted under an attentional framework in the 1990s). My study in this volume is part of a series of empirical investigations (cf. Leow, 1998a, 1998b, 2000; Rosa & ONeill, 1999) that have sought to first establish methodologically that attention was indeed paid to targeted forms in the input before the effects of such attention, and consequently awareness, could be statistcally analyzed.

To operationalize the process of attention in SLA, I (1998a) tested and found empirical support, at the morphological level, for the fine‐grained analysis of attention postulated by Tomlin and Villa (1994). To control for the potential variable of prior knowledge, only adult learners of Spanish with relatively no prior knowledge of the targeted forms in the input were included in the participant pool. To address the issue of internal validity, think‐aloud protocols were used to gather online data while learners were completing a specially designed problem‐solving task (three versions of a crossword puzzle). The role of awareness, not addressed in this 1998a study, was pursued in the present study below in relation to Schmidt's (1990, 1993, 1995) noticing hypothesis in SLA. The data used for this study came from my other two studies (1998a, 1998b) that employed similar research designs using online data elicitation procedures. Statistical analyses of the think‐aloud protocols revealed that higher levels of awareness appeared to correlate with an increased usage of hypothesis testing and morphological rule formation and that more awareness contributed to more recognition and written production of the noticed forms. These findings were both replicated by Rosa and O'Neill (19991, who extended my line of investigation by exploring the role of awareness at the syntactic level in the context of a problem‐solving task.

One debatable topic in SLA research is whether the role awareness plays is crucial for subsequent processing of L2 data to which learners are exposed. To address this thorny question, I (2000) replicated the present study below with several methodological features added to the research design of the original study. I found that learners who demonstrated awareness of the targeted morphological forms during the experimental exposure appeared to have taken in and produced in writing significantly more of these forms compared with learners who demonstrated a lack of such awareness. In addition, aware learners significantly increased their ability to recognize and produce in writing the targeted morphological forms after exposure, whereas the unaware learners failed to do so. One interesting methodological feature of this study was the use of multiple data‐elicitation measures (both online and offline) of learners' internal processes. Online measures were think‐aloud protocols gathered not only during the experimental exposure but also while performing the postexposure tasks. Offline measures were probe questions, a recognition and written production task, and a follow‐up interview with the unaware participants, In addition, following my previous studies, I used both quantitative and qualitative analyses to probe more deeply into the data.

From a theoretical perspective, the findings of studies that have employed online data elicitation measures or procedures to gather information on the attention learners actually pay to targeted forms or structures in the input and their level of awareness of such data have indicated an important role for both attention and awareness in subsequent processing of L2 data. From a methodological perspective, the use of think‐aloud protocols has been critiqued anecdotally (e.g., Seliger, 1983). One potential limitation (not empirically supported) is its potential introduction of an additional task during the processing of L2 data. However, the use of online data collection procedures is clearly higher in internal validity, one of the major limitations of many current attentional studies in SLA They provide relatively more substantial evidence of what is being measured when compared to offline measures. In addition, online data can be subjected to qualitative analyses that provide a richer source of information on learners' attention and awareness, a luxury not afforded by offline measures. Indeed, while online data have provided more insights into learners' internal processes, the use of online measures has also revealed a disturbing finding, namely, how representative are the participants in the different experimental groups? In my study (2000), although participants were exposed to the same task with the same instructions, one half performed differently from the other half in terms ofprocessing the L2 data. Other studies (e.g., Alanen, 1995; Leow, this volume, 1998a, 1998b; Rosa & O'ei11, 1999) have all found similar results revealing that some participants in one group were performing similarly to those in other groups.

The roles of attention and awareness, without doubt, are areas of research that warrant further research in SLA. The current challenge to researchers is to test further the theoretical approaches to the roles of attention and awareness in SLA and improve the operationalization of both attention and what constitutes awareness in L2 learning in studies conducted under an attentional framework in the classroom setting (Leow, 199913). In addition, the use of multiple data elicitation procedures (both online and offline) and the need for both quantitative and qualitative analyses of elicited data can only improve the research designs of future attentional studies (cf. Leow, 1999a, 2000).