that an instructor could come up with some type of input enhancement format(s) that they use each time for specific tasks with their students. Each enhancement format corresponds with a code by having a meaning assigned to it. The learners are explicitly informed as to what each code means. Over time, because the code keeps appearing in coursework, the meaning of the codes becomes automatized and the learner has more attentional resources to devote to other information processing that involves comprehension, for example. Future Research on Input Enhancement Han et al. (2008) mentioned that preliminary evidence from Overstreet (1998), substantiated recently by Lee (2007), and suggested that input enhancement may detract from learners’ attention to meaning. This should, accordingly, raise a red flag for future TE researchers (p.603). Similarly, Lee and Huang (2008) said that although the reported effects of VIE on learners’ meaning processing were not statistically significant in most of the studies, both Lee (2007) and Overstreet (1998) reported that VIE might have observable debilitating effects on the processing of meaning comprehension (p.317) Although both of the overview articles were written in 2008, recently, in 2012, Brantmeier et al. (2012) supported the claim that input enhancement could potentially disrupt comprehension by showing no effect and a negative affect among two enhancement variables. A future study could focus on morphosyntactic instructional and testing measures that are form focused instead of meaning and comprehension focused because there seems to be a negative effect of input enhancement on comprehension. There could also be future research studies that test whether or not input enhancement does indeed effect the processing of meaning and comprehension. In line with the previous research suggestion, the DeSantis (2008) and the Simard (2009) looked at morphemes and the results of the studies produced a significant effect. There are not
replicating the speech as they have heard it in the App. F-S-S (exact rate reduction and repetition input enhancement Students send recordings to teacher for feedback. Guided Practice Teacher Creates an ITunes podcast account to be used for the class podcast uploads Teacher distributes new tongue twisters. Students receive a new list of tongue twisters with some sort of increased complexity such as words with more syllables. The tongue twisters are recorded at 218, 128, 128 or F-S-S S-S Learner autonomy and creative, authentic use of language. Communicative Practice Places students into pairs. Models how the pronunciation activity will work with a willing participant. Students work with the target sounds for the lesson. Students pick from the list of vowels, which vowel they will pronounce, to their partner using the F-S-S pattern. Their partner has to guess which vowel S-S Get students used to pronouncing and recognizing sounds as well as their location on the vowel chart.
Gascoigne, C. (2006). Explicit input enhancement: Effects on target and non-target aspects of second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 551-564. Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge. Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual Enhancement of Input: Issues and Possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597-618. Jensen, E., & Vinther, T. (2003). Exact Repetition as Input Enhancement in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 53(3), 373-428. 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. Lee, S., & Huang, H. (2008). Visual Input Enhancement and Grammar Learning: A meta- analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307-331. Li, Q. (2012). Effects of Instruction on Adolescent Beginners' Acquisition of Request Modification. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers Of English To Speakers Of Other Languages And Of Standard English As A Second Dialect, 46(1), 30-55. Lyddon, P. A. (2011). The Efficacy of Corrective Feedback and Textual Enhancement in Promoting the Acquisition of Grammatical Redundancies. Modern Language Journal, 95104-129. Murphy, J., and Byrd, P. (2001). Understanding the courses we Local perspectives on English language teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Park, E. (2011). Learner-Generated Noticing of Written L2 Input: What Do Learners Notice and Why?. Language Learning, 61(1), 146-186.