•
Encyclopedia of Language and Education (Volume nine, Knowledge About Language). Stephen L. Thorne and Stephen May, Eds. Boston (MA): Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Title: Technology and the Study of Awareness Name: Cristina Sanz1 & Beatriz Lado2 1
Affiliation/Address: Department of Spanish & Portuguese, Georgetown University, Bunn Intercultural Center, Washington, DC, 20057, USA. 2
Affiliation/Address: Department of Languages & Literatures, Lehman College (CUNY) & Program in Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages, The Graduate Center (CUNY), Carman Hall, Room 257, 250 Bedford Park Blvd. West, Bronx, NY 10468-1589
Phone:1-202-687-6134 Fax:1-202-687-5786 E-mail:
[email protected]
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
1
TECHNOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF AWARENESS A concise, comprehensive and singular definition of language awareness in second language acquisition (SLA) is not easily found, nor constructed. Given the inclusive nature of the Encyclopedia, however, and for the purposes of this article, we accept the broadest definition possible to incorporate all knowledge of and about language. Language awareness is an internal phenomenon that can be externally affected by consciousness-raising or attention-focusing techniques. The implementation of technology in the study of second language (L2) awareness is a recent development: The field caught full speed in the mid-1990s, becoming one of the most innovative areas in SLA research. Technology is used to address questions about external conditions leading to awareness, levels of awareness attained during input processing, the association between awareness and language development, and individual variables (such as cognitive capacity) that are posited to explain the differential effects that the same conditions have on the development of awareness. The range of technology used in this subfield of SLA research—which began with audio and video recordings and old-fashioned overhead transparencies—today includes computers that deliver multimedia treatments and tests, as well as recording performance (both accuracy and reaction time), and which are fast replacing paper-andpencil materials. Computers are also used as tools to record verbal (think-aloud) protocols and to track performance (e.g., click behavior). Furthermore, more complex devices are now being adapted from cognitive psychology and neurolinguistics for use in research on second language awareness; the number of publications that rely on eyetracking, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and event-related potential (ERP) data is growing exponentially. Computer-based research on language awareness can be classified into descriptive, question-generating designs, descriptions of procedures or best practices, and reviews of specific technology or software. However, the literature consists mainly of quantitative, hypothesis-testing studies with designs borrowed from cognitive psychology. Early Developments Early studies involving technology and awareness are summarized in Levy (1997) and Chapelle (2001). Levy’s volume is one of the first books devoted entirely to the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL). It describes projects from the sixties and seventies (PLATO, TICCIT), as well as advances in the eighties (Hypercard, The Athena Language Learning Project) and nineties (The International Email Tandem Network, CAMILLE). The author discusses implications of the role of computers— either as a tool, as in CMC (computer-mediated communication), or as a tutor, as in CALL— in terms of learning environment, methodology, the role of teacher and learner, implementation in the curriculum, and evaluation. Chapelle (2001) goes back to the fifties in evaluating different computer applications to the study of SLA, including
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
research, language learning, and language testing. Her volume draws on different disciplines, such as Educational Technology and Computational Linguistics, and applies primary concerns in those fields to CALL in order to better address the question of how computers can improve language learning. A brief overview of the role of technology in L2 learning is provided by Blake (1998), who explains the changes the field had undergone during the previous thirty years with regard to the hardware base, the role of the learner, and presentation format. Focusing on the use of computers for research, Hulstjin (1997) reviews twenty published studies that have used computers for input presentation, learning instructions, feedback, and the elicitation and registration of responses, with or without latency (reaction times). Hulstjin (2000) describes the various ways in which computers have been used to elicit L2 data, including grammaticality judgment tasks, the preferred technique for measuring metalinguistic awareness, and others, such as sentence matching tasks, and word recognition. Research conducted by Hulstjin himself during the nineties included computer-aided designs that investigated the use of electronic dictionaries and measured reaction times in word and sentence recognition to better understand incidental vocabulary learning. Major Contributions Major contributions to the field have appeared both in acquisition journals (Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Modern Language Journal, Language Learning, Applied Psycholinguistics), usually focusing on awareness and its operationalization and measurement, as well as in technology journals (CALICO, Language Learning & Technology), usually focusing more on technological details. As opposed to a more descriptive approach in the earliest reviews, the field has recently taken a more analytical point of view. Warschauer (2004) argues that the discipline started with a structuralist standpoint during the seventies, then moved on to a more communicative position during the eighties, and eventually led to the present integrative content-based approach. However, Bax (2003) claims that Warschauer’s classification is ambiguous and does not account for aspects such as the evolution of the software or the type of activities implemented in CALL. As a consequence, Bax proposes an alternative analysis in which he includes three approaches (restricted, open, and integrated) that incorporate, among other elements, the following: the type of task, the teacher’s role, and the feedback offered to the student. Zhao’s meta-analysis (2003) concludes that technology-based language instruction can be as effective as teacher-delivered instruction; curriculum and content development need to be addressed, and empirical evaluations conducted. Studies implementing computerized treatments in their designs have addressed a current concern in SLA, namely, whether language development is possible without attention or awareness during input processing (Schmidt, 2001). Attention and awareness in relation to language development have been measured either online, with think-aloud protocols (Leow & Bowles, 2005), or offline, with debriefing questionnaires (Robinson, 1997b). Robinson (1997b) investigated whether different computerized
2
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
3
treatments (i.e., implicit, incidental, and rule search) on simple and complex grammatical rules in English could lead to different levels of awareness (i.e., noticing, looking for rules, ability to verbalize rules). The results revealed that participants in the rule-search and instructed conditions looked for rules more than those in the implicit condition. Moreover, it was found that only awareness at the level of looking for rules and ability to verbalize the rules positively affected learners’ accuracy. Rosa and Leow (2004) further investigated the role of awareness in L2 development by implementing verbal protocols. Participants were exposed to [+/- explicit] computerized treatments (LIBRA cards) to teach Spanish contrary-to-fact past conditional sentences. The study concluded that greater explicitness in learning conditions led to a higher level of reported awareness, and that higher levels of awareness were related to greater L2 development. Technology has also been implemented in studies that attempt to investigate the roles of type of practice, feedback, and grammar instruction in L2 development under an attentional framework. Some of these studies are reviewed briefly in the following paragraphs, whereas others are presented in Table 1. Computer-assisted research has compared input-based and output-based practice (Morgan-Short & Bowden, 2006; Nagata, 1998). Implementing Authorware 5, Morgan-Short and Bowden (2006) observed that although there was no difference between groups on interpretation measures, the output-based group outperformed the input-based group on the production of Spanish pre-verbal direct-object pronouns. This difference, however, was short-lived. Research on feedback includes various consciousness-raising or Focus on Form conditions (Ayoun, 2001; Nagata & Swisher, 1995; Lado, Bowden, Stafford, & Sanz, 2014). Nagata and Swisher isolated the effects of more (with metalinguistic information) and less (without metalinguistic information) explicit written feedback. After four computer sessions of practice with a translation task, type of feedback had not affected production of verbal predicates, but metalinguistic information was beneficial for the production of particles. Although the results in Nagata and Swisher seem to converge with the literature on the positive effects of explicit feedback on language development, studies such as Lado et al. (2014) showed that the advantage observed for the metalinguistic condition disappears in the long term, and that in fact the more implicit condition leads to faster processing and greater long term accuracy gains. Other studies have investigated a combination of feedback and grammar instruction (DeGraaff, 1997; Robinson, 1996, 1997a; Sanz & Morgan-Short, 2004; Stafford, Bowden, & Sanz, 2012). De Graaff (1997) assessed the effects of explicit rule presentation when participants practiced target forms in eXperanto through interaction with a computer lesson developed using TAIGA (1987). Although the results revealed that explicit rule presentation was beneficial, the study is limited due to the nature of the practice and the lack of control over the amount of feedback. To avoid these problems, Sanz & Morgan-Short (2004) isolated the effects of explanation and feedback in their investigation of the acquisition of Spanish word order by comparing four groups combining [+/- explanation] and [+/- explicit feedback]. All groups were exposed to meaningful structured input through practice tasks. The implementation of LIBRA allowed for provision of feedback that was immediate, individualized, and focused on the target form. Contrary to previous studies, results from Sanz & Morgan-Short showed
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
4
no differences. The authors concluded that exposing L2 learners to structured input through task-essential practice was sufficient to promote acquisition, and that in such a context, providing rule explanation, feedback, or both, does not significantly add to the knowledge gained through practice. The effects of rule presentation have also been studied without feedback (DeKeyser, 1995; Ellis, 1993; Morgan-Short, Sanz, Steinhauer, & Ulman, 2010). Ellis (1993) examined rule presentation of a grammar structure (Welsh soft mutations) with or without examples and concluded that provision of computerized explicit grammar with instances of the target form allowed for generalization at both explicit and implicit levels, thus facilitating language development. Likewise, DeKeyser (1995) showed that explicit rule presentation, as opposed to more implicit conditions, had beneficial effects for the acquisition of categorical rules, and that rules, in fact, were not acquired by the implicit group. In this study, computers were used to expose participants to combinations of written sentences in an artificial language and their corresponding pictures. Morgan-Short et al. (2010) used an artificial language paradigm to investigate the role of explicit and implicit instruction on neural and behavioral measures. Whereas the explicit condition included computer-delivered pre-practice grammar explanation, the implicit learning condition contained only practice. Behaviorally, he results revealed an advantage in performance for the explicit group only at low proficiency, which disappeared at high proficiency. Interestingly, ERPs measures revealed that only implicit training led to a fully native-like brain activation pattern. The role of feedback on L2 development is also being investigated extensively in CMC research, an area that has grown significantly in the last decade. Many of these studies are conducted under an interactionist perspective involving chats and email and address issues such as the role of explicit and implicit feedback in fostering conscious processing and promoting L2 development during interaction (Sagarra & Abbhul, 2013; Sauro, 2009). For example, Sauro (2009) investigated the effect of providing CMC corrective feedback to 23 participants assigned to 3 groups (control, recast, and metalinguistic) on the development of the English zero article in abstract noncount nouns. The results revealed a significant advantage of the metalinguistic over the control group in immediate gains, a difference that disappeared with time. While feedback in Sauro (2009) was provided by a native speaker during task-based interaction in a textchat environment, in Sagarra and Abbhul (2013), the feedback was administered by the computer during practice exercises and was developed to foster error noticing and to promote linguistic accuracy in Spanish gender and number agreement. In this study, which also explored the role of working memory (WM) in the effects observed, participants were assigned to 1 of 4 groups (no feedback, utterance rejection, recasts, or enhanced recasts) both in written and oral mode. The results indicated that recast was more effective than either no feedback or utterance rejection. Additionally, oral enhanced recasts were more beneficial than oral unenhanced and written enhanced recasts. Recasts worked best for high WM individuals. Technology has also played a crucial role in research exploring multimedia annotations and incidental vocabulary learning. The studies conducted in the nineties concluded that the use of electronic glosses had a positive effect on incidental
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
5
vocabulary learning, and recent contributions have explored the cognitive processes involved. Bowles (2004) compared computerized with traditional paper-and-pen glosses. Analysis of verbal protocols did not identify differences in noticing, and no differences were identified regarding L2 vocabulary development. Yanguas (2009) used the same conceptual approach but included 4 computerized conditions (no gloss, text gloss, picture gloss, and text + picture gloss). Results indicated that all experimental groups noticed the words more than the control group, but these differences in processes were not reflected in gains on the production test. Using a different approach, Peters, Hulstijn, Sercu, and Lutjeharms (2009) investigated how the use of three potential computerized enhancement techniques increased online vocabulary use and word retention during and after reading an L2 text. The techniques included: 1) informing students that the reading task would be followed by a vocabulary test, 2) making students pay attention to unfamiliar words in the reading text by asking comprehension questions, and 3) requiring students to complete a vocabulary task after reading the text. The results indicated that only 1 and 2 made participants use the online dictionary more. Additionally, whereas 1 and 3 had a positive effect on a word recognition test, 2 and 3 had a positive effect on word retention in the recall posttests. Corpus linguistics is leading to the development of linguistic theories that challenge existing orthodoxies in applied linguistics. It also raises a number of questions, such as how corpus data should be interpreted, and how it can be applied to areas in which applied linguistics is active, including language awareness. Hunston as well as Granger, Hung, and Petch-Tyson, both published in 2002, are accessible introductions to corpus linguistics and essential for anyone interested in corpora and its impact on applied linguistics. Finally, Jones and Haywood (2004) provide an example of research that incorporates corpus linguistics into the study of awareness. They found that the use of corpus-based tasks increased learner’s awareness of formulaic sequences, although this awareness did not transfer to more production of these phrases in their own writing. Work in Progress A substantial number of projects that implement technology in the study of language awareness are currently underway. Some use technology to enhance the development of awareness. For others, technology allows for the observation and measurement of awareness. More integrative projects combine both motivations to include technology, an example of which is The Latin Project (TLP). Designed by Sanz and then graduate students Bowden and Stafford in 2003, it is an investigation of the interaction between prior experience with language (bilingualism), and type of input (varying in degrees of explicitness) that includes cognitive variables (working memory and awareness) as moderating variables. The design is experimental with computerdelivered treatments and tests, including oral and written interpretation, grammaticality judgment, and production, combining old items (present in the treatment) and new items. Computers also administer a battery of working memory tests, debriefing questionnaires, and gather think-aloud data for the study of the role of awareness during online processing. The design consists of a web-based application combining Flash and
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
6
ColdFusion programming tools that delivers oral and written input combined with images. The application also gathers reaction time and accuracy data and stores it in a database available online. Web delivery allows for data gathering wherever a personal computer can access a high-speed network. While the goal of the input-based treatments is to promote language development, in designing the tests the researchers strived to provide the most comprehensive picture of language knowledge and its degrees of automatization to include both explicit and implicit knowledge. The Latin Project has produced 10 publications reporting empirical studies with college-age and older (60+) learners, monolinguals and bilinguals of different proficiency levels. Results across studies show that All learners benefit from “doing something” with input that carries meaning, that has been manipulated to make it salient and frequent and leads to error. In general, advantages for more explicit conditions tend to be lost over 2/3-week interval, but retention is observed when transfer of tasks is involved (from input-based practice to production tests) and for the most complex aspects of the structure (Stafford, Bowden, & Sanz, 2012). However, TLP studies also show that explicit instruction helps and hinders depending on the learner’s background. For example, older adults can learn in the absence of explicit instruction, but when instruction is provided, the timing of explicit input makes a difference: During practice (as feedback) it is detrimental, prior to practice, it gives an advantage to aging bilinguals compared to aging monolinguals (Cox & Sanz, 2015). SLA researchers have begun to discover the potential contributions of new methods, including neuroimaging techniques to the study of SLA. Two such techniques are eventrelated potentials (ERPs) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). ERPs measure the brain’s electrical activity and provide temporal information that reflects the neural processing of an event. fMRI measures the brain’s hemodynamic response to an event and provides information about what part of the brain is activated in response to an event. Eye-tracking data studies attention during online processing recording and calculating gaze direction and duration. Less expensive and more popular is Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2015), a software application for the analysis of speech in phonetics, and software like e-Prime that allows tracking reaction time (i.e., RT or Latency). RT refers to the amount of time (in milliseconds) between the presentation of a stimulus and the behavioral response of interest (i.e., making a decision and pressing a key). Generally, faster RTs are considered to reflect efficient, fast execution of the mental procedures involved, though there is still debate among some SLA researchers as to whether ‘faster’ is also ‘more automatic’ or is instead related to speeded-up control (explicit) procedures. Work in progress relies on ERPs (Faretta-Sttutenberg’s dissertation out of Morgan-Short’s lab), eye-tracking (Sagarra & Sanz in Sagarra’s lab), Praat-processed data (Morales-Front, Nagle, Moorman & Sanz), and latency (Grey, Cox, Serafini, & Sanz) to understand the interplay between cognitive abilities and context of learning and to test new, frequency-based approaches to language development. Taken together, these studies are characterized by a multidimensional approach that assesses changes in linguistic abilities (overall proficiency, grammaticality judgments, accuracy in sentence processing, lexical access, pronunciation) and online processing (ERPs, latency, gaze) among intermediate and advanced learners of Spanish as a second language. Directly related to this entry, these studies are looking at the role of awareness
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
7
in language development in the absence of explicit instruction; i.e., as a result of intensive exposure to the L2 input during study abroad, in the absence of classroom instruction focused on language and therefore in the most implicit learning context possible. The above-mentioned research by Morgan-Short, Sagarra, Sanz and colleagues was presented in the year 2015 at the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), Eurosla, and the 10th International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB), where most empirical studies on awareness in multilinguals are made public. Problems and Difficulties We began this article with the theoretical statement that there is not one definition of language awareness but many, and that, for the purposes of the article, we accepted the broadest definition possible to incorporate all knowledge of and about language. A narrower definition would include only conscious knowledge of the language, that is, knowledge of which the learner is aware. An even narrower use of awareness, linked to Schmidt’s noticing hypotheses, distinguishes between language information that has been processed in working memory under attention, a required condition for input to become intake ready to feed the acquisition process, and that which has not. Confusion over terminology is a serious problem: awareness, consciousness, and explicitness are often used as synonyms. Sometimes they are applied to input processing, to knowledge, to input, even to pedagogical techniques. Naturally, because constructs are hard to define, measurements will also be challenging. In research on awareness it is often necessary to reformulate tests and revise coding procedures. Researchers have to make decisions about which technique to include in the design: Online measures, such as concurrent think-aloud protocols, might turn against the researcher by altering the very same processes under investigation (i.e., reactivity). Offline measurements, like debriefing questionnaires and stimulated recalls, have problems of veridicality: Is the participant making up processes that never took place while completing the task? Whether online or offline, lack of verbalization does not mean lack of awareness: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These problems in the study of awareness during processing parallel those in the study of explicit and implicit knowledge. Most acquisitionists hold that competence is equivalent to implicit knowledge, so the litmus test for effectiveness of a pedagogical technique is whether it positively affects implicit knowledge. The problem is how to determine that learners did not use their conscious knowledge of rules to monitor their responses. Finally, a common limitation that L2 researchers outside the cognitive approach associate with the studies reported here is that of validity. Often, researchers have to choose between a preference for naturalistic language behavior and controlled collection procedures that result in highly restricted, sentence-level data. In those studies that compare teacher-directed versus computer-assisted language instruction, the Hawthorne effect is almost unavoidable. And to conclude, as in most SLA research, the disparity of methods implemented and the lack of replication are a challenge for any scholar trying to draw general conclusions from the research (Sanz, 1997).
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
8
Including multiple tests (interpretation, production, judgments), measures like latency (i.e., reaction time), and techniques such as eye-tracking and neuroimaging in the design are ways in which researchers are taking advantage of technology to avoid some of the limitations listed above, but they face practical challenges related to the availability of samples, hardware, software, and technical help. Compensation for participants, programmers, workshop attendance to learn the techniques, equipment rental and acquisition make this research much more expensive than classic paper-and-pencil tests administered in the classroom. These conditions make the availability of institutional funding a determining factor.
Future Directions In cognitive psychology, laboratory studies that utilize technology for data collection are the norm, as technology allows for tighter control of individual and environmental variables as well as finer measures of the effects of treatments. For example, response time, gaze (direction), time spent on particular portions of written input (eye-tracking), response tracking (mouse-tracking, clickers) for the analysis of speed (latency), frequency and type of errors during treatment, in addition to classic accuracy scores are all measurable thanks to the use of technology. Acquisitionists nowadays are striving to adapt to the study of SLA techniques that are common in cognitive psychology, including new measurements of awareness. Technology is rapidly replacing paper-and-pencil delivery, allowing for individual exposure to the treatment, facilitating randomization of participants, and control of key variables in the treatment, such as the amount and type of feedback or input frequency to which each participant is exposed, even to individually adapt treatments based on performance. Computers also make research more convenient: Instead of simultaneous use of an overhead projector, a VCR, TV sets, and multiple copies of the testing and treatment materials, all that is needed is a computer. If the application is web-based, as in The Latin Project, both data gathering and access to the database are possible in multiple sites around the clock. Other advantages are also important: Multimedia capabilities make the lesson far more attractive to the user and allow for provision of video and audio input simultaneously, thus accommodating different learning types, and expectations among young learners. To conclude, laboratory research on language awareness will continue to increase the implementation of technology in the design as more and larger laboratories become available, research institutions hire technicians, and software becomes more adaptive and affordable. The field is rapidly moving beyond computers to make use of specialized devices such as eye-trackers, EEGs, and MRI units.
References
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
9
Bax, S. (2003). CALL- past, present and future. System, 31, 13-28. Blake, R. J. (1998). The role of technology. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship. New York: Modern Language Association. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.4.09, retrieved 1 June 2015 from http://www.praat.org/ Bowles, M. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania, 87(3), 541-552. Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cox, J. & Sanz, C. (2015). Deconstructing PI for the ages: Explicit instruction vs. practice in young and older adult bilinguals. IRAL, 53(2), 225-248. DeGraaff, R. (1997). The experanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249-276. DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379410. Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 289-318. Granger, S., Hung, J., & Petch-Tyson, S. (2002). Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hulstjin, J. H. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Possibilities and limitations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 131143. Hulstjin, J. H. (2000). The use of computer technology in experimental studies of second language acquisition: A survey of some techniques and some ongoing studies. Language Learning & Technology, 3(2), 32-43. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt, (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 269-300). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Lado, B., Bowden, H., Stafford, C., & Sanz, C. (2014). A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 320-344. Leow, R. P., & Bowles, M.A. (2005). Attention and awareness in SLA. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 179-203). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted Language Learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects of linguistic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1).
Cristina Sanz & Beatriz Lado
Technology and awareness
10
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ulman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60(1), 154-193. Nagata, N., & Swisher, M. V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28(3), 337-347. Peters, E., Hulstijn, J.H., Sercu, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning, 59(1), 113-151. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67. Robinson, P. (1997b). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47(1), 45-99. Rosa, E., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269-292. Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computerdelivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 196-216. Sanz, C. (1997). Issues in SLA research methodology: Production processes and variability. In W. R. Glass & A. T. Pérez-Lerroux (Eds.), Current Approaches to L1 and L2 Acquisition of Spanish. Cambridge, MA: Cascadilla Press. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback. A computer assisted study. Language Learning, 54(1), 35-78. Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stafford, C., Bowden, H.W., Sanz, C. (2012). Optimizing language instruction: Matters of explicitness, practice and cue learning. Language Learning, 62(3), 741-768. Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Brown (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second and foreign language classrooms (pp. 15-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 48-67. Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO journal, 21(1), 7-27.
• List of cross-references Keywords explicit, implicit, input, processing, instruction, CALL, CMC, glosses, corpora, treatments, testing
