Fenfang Hwu
On the Applicability of the Inputenhancement Hypothesis and Input
Processing Theory in Multimedia CALL:
The Case of Spanish Preterite and Imperfect Instruction in an Input Application
FENFANG HWU
Bowling Green State University
ABSTRACT
Researchers have suggested that input-enhancement hypothesis (e.g., Chapelle,
1998) and mind-centered input-based theories (e.g., Collentine, 1998) might be
consulted for the design of multimedia CALL. The input-enhancement hypothesis,
processing instruction theory, and the nature of Spanish preterite and imperfect
were examined in this light in order to determine how the input-based hypothesis
and theory could inform the input-enhancement methods and techniques needed
for the design of a computer application focusing on the instruction of the targeted
structures. Despite having considered the above mentioned hypothesis and theory,
to derive potentially effective input-enhancement techniques, the application would
have to take the following into account: the student’s learning problems observed
during classroom teaching, the shortcomings of the language models included in
textbooks, the drawbacks of current grammar rules, our incomplete knowledge of
the uses of the Spanish preterite/imperfect. Consequently, this mini input-enhancement application draws insights from the following areas to guide its design: the
input-enhancement hypothesis, processing instruction theory, the author’s investigation in the uses of the Spanish preterite/imperfect, the benefits of using videos in
language instruction, and the concept of data-driven learning as exemplified by
concordances. The author concludes by proposing that to create a potentially effective input application for grammar instruction, CALL designers need to consult
other relevant areas in addition to considering SLA theory.
KEYWORDS
Data-driven Learning, Form-meaning Mapping, Input Enhancement, Processing Instruction, Spanish Aspect, Video
INTRODUCTION
Chapelle (1998) proposed that SLA theory and research might be consulted to
suggest multimedia CALL design. One of the suggestions was that “developCALICO
Journal,
21 (2),
Volume 21
Number
2 p-p.
© 2004 CALICO Journal1
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
ment of principles for CALL design methods require effective ‘input enhancement’ (Sharwood Smith, 1991)” (Chapelle, 1998, p. 3). In other words, one of
the hypotheses relevant for developing multimedia CALL is that “[t]he linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient” (Chapelle,
1998, p. 3). Although several techniques for making input more salient were
used or suggested by researchers (e.g., Collentine, 1998; Doughty, 1991;
Sharwood Smith, 1993; Tomasello & Hurron, 1988, 1989), it is conceivable
that these techniques are not exclusive or even applicable in all areas of language learning. Hence, different techniques may need to be identified for different areas of language learning. In fact, the computer application described in
this article was designed for instruction on the Spanish preterite and imperfect
uses techniques suggested by researchers listed above as well as several other
techniques.
Although the input-enhancement hypothesis proposes the effect of making
input salient for language learning, it does not address the question of what type
of input can be used for what area of language learning. Neither does it suggest
what criteria can be used to select various types of input for enhancement. (Soap
operas clips were chosen for the current application because they seemed to be
ideal input for instruction on the targeted grammatical structures. Further details about using this type of input will be given below.) In addition, as Krashen
(1982) pointed out, good input needs to be “comprehensible.” To determine
whether an input is comprehensible, Chapelle (1997, p. 9) commented
Examining the input alone, however, one cannot know whether or not it
should be considered sufficient in linguistic level or amount for a given
learner. Nevertheless, some input characteristics can be identified as potentially comprehension enhancing—and these may help to focus description
of language in L2 tasks. The researcher might, for example, note whether or
not the input has been modified through simplification, elaboration, added
redundancy, or sequencing to make it “comprehensible.”
It appears then that one cannot be certain if a selected input will be comprehensible (until proven to be true) and that the methods used to make input potentially comprehensible varies from case to case. The application described
here uses various methods to increase the likelihood of the input being comprehensible.
Collentine (1998) proposed that CALL materials designers and educators
explore mind-centered theories, such as those that recognize the importance of
providing learners with comprehensible input. One such theory is processing
instruction. Processing instruction stresses the importance of giving learners
opportunities for consistent form-meaning mappings in input activities, going
beyond a focus solely on form, as a narrower interpretation of input enhancement hypothesis might suggest. It should be noted that the main principles for
designing input activities for processing instruction have limitations; they can
2
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
only address the learning of some language properties, such as morphology.
Nevertheless, processing instruction was examined to determine to what extent
it could inform the design of the current application.
The objective of this article is to describe what aspects of the input-based
hypothesis and theory could be fruitfully applied to the design of a computer
application on the instruction of the Spanish preterite and imperfect. The article
also depicts how the shortfalls of the hypothesis and theory were overcome by
taking into account observations derived from classroom language teaching and
researching the nature and use of the targeted structures. Consequently, additional input enhancement techniques were developed by drawing on insights
from SLA theory and other areas. Before discussing the design and features of
the program, we will first examine the input-based hypothesis and theory in
more detail in the section below.
INPUT ENHANCEMENT
Input is the “potentially processible language data which are made available, by
chance or by design, to the language learner” (Sharwood Smith, 1993, p. 167).
It is an essential component of second language acquisition because learners
use it “in order to construct a mental representation of the grammar that they are
acquiring” (VanPatten, 1996, p. 13).
“Input enhancement” was termed by Sharwood Smith (1991) as the process
by which language input becomes salient to the learner. “This process can come
about as a result of deliberate manipulation, or it can be the natural outcomes of
some internal learning strategy” (p. 118). A teacher or textbook writer can induce such a process by manipulating or enhancing input, ideally with the hope
that it can affect learner knowledge and thereby learner behavior (Sharwood
Smith, 1993). Notice that input enhancement “make[s] no further assumptions
about the consequences of that input on the learner” (Sharwood Smith, 1993,
p.176). In other words, “what is made salient by the teacher may not be perceived as salient by the learner (Sharwood Smith, 1991, p. 120). Following the
same line of logic, it is also likely that what is perceived as salient by some
learners may not be perceived as salient by other learners. Consequently, whether
the enhanced input will ultimately trigger the relevant mental grammatical representation is thus “an empirical question [emphasis added]” (Sharwood Smith,
1991, p. 120).
As stated by Sharwood Smith, there are both positive and negative input enhancements. “Positive input enhancement would simply make more salient certain correct forms in the input” (Sharwood Smith, 1993, p. 177). For instance,
“[i]f the learner has a different perception of the L2 grammar than is evidenced
by the input, then positive evidence may serve as a trigger to change that grammar and bring it in line with the native-speaker grammar” (Sharwood Smith,
1991, p. 122-123). “Negative input enhancement would flag given forms as
incorrect, thus signaling to the learner that they have violated the target norms”
(Sharwood Smith, 1993, p. 177). In sum, “[p]ositive evidence tells us what is
Volume 21 Number 2
3
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
possible and negative evidence tells us what is not possible (Sharwoord Smith,
1991, p. 123).
What are the strategies or techniques that can be used to make input salient?
The examples cited by Sharwood Smith (1991, 1993) include color coding,
boldfacing, using error flags, stress, intonation, and gestures, as well as pointing out and explaining a construction using metalinguistic terminology. These
techniques seem to be techniques that have been widely used both in learning
language and other subjects. Nevertheless, Sharwood Smith cautioned that input enhancement could come in many different forms. For example, in one case—
cited from Tomasello & Hurron (1988, 1989)—”the idea was to capitalize on
the learners’ own analogizing tendencies and artificially induce interlingual
overgeneralization or first language transfer errors. Learners would then be confronted with their own production, which would then be marked as incorrect.”
(Sharwood Smith, 1993, p. 177). Notice that the input-enhancement technique
used in this example is based on capitalizing on the learner’s erroneous tendencies/strategies in connection with the targeted language structure(s). A technique like this one could not have been developed in a vacuum, but, rather, as a
minimum, must have been the result of the observation and analysis of learners’
behaviors. Hence, to devise potentially effective input-enhancement techniques
before empirical studies are conducted to verify or fine tune the degree of their
effectiveness, teachers or CALL designers may need to observe learners’ behaviors or investigate other areas to find potentially effective techniques.
In summary, the input-enhancement hypothesis informs teachers or CALL
designers that making input salient is relevant for language learning. However,
language teachers or CALL designers still need to search for techniques suitable for different areas of learning. At the same time, it is likely that language
teachers may already be intuitively using effective input-enhancement techniques
(Sharwood Smith, 1993), which, of course, deserves research attention. It is
also likely that there are other theories that could inform input-enhancement
techniques. As mentioned earlier, processing instruction is a candidate, but it
has limitations. In the sections below, we will examine processing instruction
theory.
PROCESSING INSTRUCTION
According to VanPatten (1996), the difference between Sharwood Smith’s (1993)
input enhancement and processing instruction is that input enhancement is “concerned with making forms salient [emphasis added], that is, bringing them to
learners’ attention in some way. Processing instruction does this but also attempts to provide opportunities for consistent form-meaning mappings [emphasis added] in activities” (p. 84). The goal is to deliver grammatically richer
intake to the developing language system.
Processing instruction takes the limited capacity of attentional resources during language learning activities into account when designing input activities for
grammar instruction. In other words, processing instruction assumes that learn4
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
ers filter input. The result is that only part of the input makes its way into the
developing system. Hence, it asks learners to process input that has been specially contrived (simplified or modified) to insure that they get intake from the
input. The ultimate goal is that learners acquire form-meaning mappings at the
end of the process, which they might not make when exposed to nonstructured
or “spontaneous” input. Activities in processing instruction utilize what is best
termed “structured input.” VanPatten (1996) stressed that during these activities “[i]t is not enough that learners simply be directed to the form; they must
also use it to comprehend the meaning of the sentence. Thus, the activities are
formulated with the processing strategies of learners in mind” (p. 86).
Looking at this from a solely logical standpoint, some hypotheses about processing strategies of learners assumed by processing instruction offer considerable promise to help shape the design of learning activities. The design of such
activities guide learners to attend to the semantic contribution of the grammatical item in question. In other words, learners must use the form to comprehend
the meaning of the sentence because that is the only way that they can successfully complete the practice (see activities A and B below). Other hypotheses
about the processing strategies of learners do not seem to be as promising (see
activity C below). Even if some sort of learners’ strategy is reflected in an activity, the learners’ attention to the semantic contribution of the form is not guaranteed.
HYPOTHESES ABOUT LEARNERS’ PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN
PROCESSING INSTRUCTION
One hypothesis of learners’ processing strategies is that learners prefer processing lexical items to grammatical items (e.g., morphology) for semantic information1 (VanPatten, 1996). For instance, in the sentence: “Mary watched TV
for two hours yesterday,” the notion of past is marked by both the verbal inflection “-ed” and the time adverb “yesterday.” Since many grammatical items are
regularly accompanied by lexical redundancies, as the above sentence exemplifies, learners have the tendency to rely solely on those redundancies to get the
meaning of the sentence (e.g., an action in the past). To push learners to get the
meaning conveyed by the targeted grammar (e.g., the verbal inflection “-ed”),
what processing instruction does is to elevate the communicative value of the
targeted grammatical structure by eliminating the lexical redundancy from the
data (e.g., “yesterday”). This strategy yields the following modified sentence as
input for learners: “Mary watched TV for two hours.” Activity A below aims to
teach past tense morphology by eliminating lexical redundancy and elevating
the communicative value of the grammatical item.
Activity A. Listening for Time Reference
Listen to each sentence. Indicate whether the action occurred last week or is
part of a set of actions oriented toward the present. (VanPatten, 1996, p.
100)
Volume 21 Number 2
5
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(sentences read by instructor or heard on tape)
John talked on the phone.
Mary helped her mother.
Robert studies for two hours.
Sam watched TV.
Lori visits her parents.
The above hypothesis of learners’ processing strategies seems plausible considering the strategies that the speakers of non-inflectional languages might
use. A noninflectional language such as Chinese does not rely on grammatical
items to communicate a notion such as past or plurality (e.g., “-ed, -s”) but
lexical items (e.g., temporal adverbs such as “yesterday” or quantifying adjectives such as “three”) or discourse-level context. The above hypothesis then
seems useful for speakers of an inflectional language learning another inflectional language, or speakers of a noninflectional language learning an inflectional language, but not for speakers of an inflectional language learning a
noninflectional language.
Another hypothesis of learners’ strategies is that native speakers of English
learning Spanish have the tendency to assign the first noun in a string of nounverb-noun the role of subject because English is a language that follows the
subject-verb-object word order. However, Spanish contains strings that follow
both English word order and object-verb-subject order. To deal with this tendency, a structured input activity would provide input that contains sentences
with both types of strings (subject-verb-object and object-verb-subject). To complete the activity, learners would have to apply the principle that Spanish does
not follow a rigid subject-verb-object word order. Activity B shows such an
example.
Activity B. Word Order
Select the picture that best corresponds to the sentence. (Keep in mind that
Spanish does not follow a rigid subject-verb-object word order and that object pronouns may go before a conjugated verb or at the end of an infinitive.)
(VanPatten, 1996, p. 73)
In the first question, students hear Sus padres lo llaman por teléfono and see
a set of two pictures in which the first picture shows two adults telephoning
a young man and the second shows a young man telephoning two adults. In
the second question, students hear Las invita Manuel al cine and see a set of
two pictures in which the first shows a young man inviting two young woman
to the movies and the second shows the two young woman inviting the young
man to the movies.
Activity C attempts to teach “-ing” complements with the English verb “enjoy.” It should be noted that in this activity, the learner’s attention to the semantic contribution of the form is not guaranteed.
6
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
Activity C. Looking for Verb Endings
Check off the statements you think are true based on what you know about
your instructor. (VanPatten, 1996, p. 105)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
He/She enjoys teaching.
He/She enjoys watching the news at night.
He/She enjoys preparing exams.
He/She enjoys correcting exams.
He/She does not enjoy reading student essays.
This task, according to VanPatten (1995), “cannot be performed without the
learner making the form-meaning connection. In order to indicate whether or
not the sentence is applicable to the instructor, the learner must know what the
sentence means and how the grammar encodes meaning in each” (p. 105). Unfortunately, unlike activities A and B, this activity does not require that learners
know the meaning of the verb ending “-ing” in order to perform the task. They
could perform the task simply by knowing the meaning of the verb “enjoy” and
the meaning of the verb stems of the nominalized verbal phrases that follow
“enjoy.” In other words, learners do not necessarily have to use the form to
comprehend the meaning of the sentence, although their attention may be directed to the form “-ing” due to the reminder in the title of the instruction (Looking for Verb Endings). In addition, some learners may not notice that “enjoy” is
the co-occurring verb with those verbs with “-ing” endings. It is likely that the
effect of form-meaning connection in activity C does not parallel that in activity
A or B. In addition, no a priori hypothesis was made about the learners’ strategy
with regard to this type of structure; hence, no corresponding instructional strategy was created to deal with that (misleading) strategy.
Collentine (1998) pointed out that “even Processing Instruction as it is currently conceived has limited potential as a means of providing a mind-centered,
input-oriented approach to grammar instruction” (p. 6). The reason is because
“the principal strategy for elevating a grammatical structure’s communicative
value is the omission of the structure’s lexical redundancies” (p. 7) (e.g., Activity A). However, “many important uses of grammar require lexical redundancy”
(p. 7). As activity B reveals, another strategy that processing instruction uses to
elevate a grammatical structure’s communicative value is by providing learners
with all the language patterns, patterns that resemble and differ from learners’
native language.2 The goal is to direct learners to utilize the correct learning
strategy while completing a task that requires attention to the meaning of the
structure in question.
Since the core principle of processing instruction is to provide opportunities
for consistent form-meaning mappings in activities, a logical question to ask is
how processing instruction would deal with grammatical forms that carry little
or no communicative value. With regard to this issue, VanPatten (1996) offered.
Volume 21 Number 2
7
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
[G]rammatical form of little or no communicative value will be detected
only when the resources required by detection to process meaning are not
depleted. The prediction from this is that a grammatical form of little or no
communicative value will be processed much later in learners’ development
and subsequently will be acquired later than other grammatical form. (p. 27)
This statement seems to suggest the utilization of some sort of input enhancement. Nevertheless, VanPatten did not provide any concrete examples of activities that specifically handle this category of grammatical forms.
PROCESSING INSTRUCTION SUGGESTS TEACHING ONLY ONE THING
AT A TIME
As mentioned earlier, processing instruction asks learners to process input that
has been specially simplified or modified to insure that they get intake from the
input. One of the strategies that it suggests is that activity designers or instructors present only one thing at a time when developing input activities (Lee &
VanPatten, 1995; VanPatten, 1996). The main objective is to make the task easier
to take on and thereby help learners to attend to the targeted item. Hence, the
guideline suggests that
This involves breaking up verb and noun/adjective paradigms or focusing on
only one rule of usage at a time. Breaking up paradigms and lists of rules is
useful for two reasons. First, it allows the explicit presentation and explanation
of the grammatical structure to be kept to a minimum. The learner is not mired
in a complex presentation and explanation of the grammatical item, as all forms
and all functions are not being presented at once. Second, breaking up a paradigm is more likely to result in attention directed toward the targeted item. In
other words, because there is less to pay attention to, it is easier to pay attention.
Learners can be made aware of the rest of the paradigm and can be told that they
will learn it over several days. The same is true for functions and uses of a
grammar item. (Lee & VanPatten, 1995, p. 104).
COMPUTER-BASED ENVIRONMENTS ARE IDEAL FOR DELIVERING
STRUCTURED-INPUT ACTIVITIES FOR GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION
Although processing instruction has limitations as an input-oriented approach
to grammar instruction, it has proved to be remarkably effective in some studies
(Collentine, 1998). Unlike some traditional mechanical drills, these form-meaning mapping activities require attention to the meaning of the grammatical form
(e.g., activities A and B above). However, like traditional mechanical drills,
these form-meaning activities are drills, hence, suitable to be delivered in computer-based environments. In effect, a great number of structured input activities are placed in the student workbook of the Sabias que Ö introductory Spanish textbook instead of the textbook itself. This approach supports the contention that these activities do not require immediate assistance from the instructor
or interactions with the instructor or peers; in other words, they can be delivered by the computer.
8
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
One of the advantages of designing and delivering input-based activities in a
computer-based environment, compared to a paper-based or teacher-delivered
environment, is that these activities can be enhanced by multimedia or other
advanced features of computer technology. In addition, computer-based environments enjoy the benefits of learner control and accessibility, both of which
encourage repetition. Furthermore, computer-aided tracking technology can
provide instructors with information about learners’ behaviors during the activities. Such information can then be used to modify the design of activities
and communicate with learners to modify their learning behaviors to improve
their learning (Hwu, in press). In the light of all the factors sketched here, this
author concluded that a computer-based input-enhancement application would
meet the needs of instructional materials for the Spanish preterite and imperfect.
In the following section, we will take a closer look at the nature of Spanish
preterite and imperfect and evaluate whether the main principles of processing
instruction can inform the design of the computer application
ELIMINATING THE STRUCTURE’S LEXICAL REDUNDANCY CANNOT
HANDLE THE COMPLEX FORM-MEANING MAPPINGS IN SPANISH
ASPECT
As activity A above indicates, connecting past tense morphology (e.g., English
simple past tense or Spanish preterite) with the notion of past is a straightforward task because learners map one form onto one meaning (the notion of past).
This is usually a task given to students at the beginning level of language learning. As shown in activity A, it is possible to elevate the structure’s communicative value by eliminating the structure’s lexical redundancy as suggested by
processing instruction.
On the other hand, learning the distinction between the two simple past tense
forms in Spanish (when to use preterite and when to use imperfect) usually
starts at the beginning level, continues at the intermediate level, and even still
poses a great challenge for learners of the advanced level. Some of the challenges lie with the complex mappings between forms and meanings. For example, although both of the past tense verb forms carry the meaning past, each
verb form additionally conveys several meanings. The meaning of the verb form
is usually associated with the context surrounding the verb in question. For
instance, in a conversational setting, the meaning of the targeted verb is consonant with the conversational rules or cooperative principles that the interlocutors subconsciously follow (see Brown, 1994). In other words, the interlocutors
must choose the right form (preterite or imperfect) to convey the meaning that
is in accordance with the situation. In certain contexts, however, either verb
form can be used without changing the core message conveyed by the speaker.
It is evident that the instructional strategy of eliminating a structure’s lexical
redundancy to raise its grammatical value does not work for teaching the uses
of these verb forms. In effect, all contextual cues are vital for the interpretation
Volume 21 Number 2
9
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
of the meaning of a verb form. Thus, what learners need to be trained to learn
when acquiring the uses of these verb forms are: (a) what possible meanings
each verb form has, (b) in what contexts a certain meaning is manifested, and
(c) which verb form is capable of expressing that meaning. These principles
were derived by the author’s observing and studying the nature of the targeted
structures and the students’ problems with them. Having acquired the principles
a-c, learners should then be better equipped to determine which context requires which form or which form can convey the meaning they intend to express.
The above suggestion of training learners to pay attention to contextual cues
is in line with García and van Putte’s (1988) observation on the strategies used
by learners and native speakers of Spanish in narratives. As Westfall and forester (1996, p. 551) have noted, “non-natives tend to focus on the immediate
context, specifically the verb type (state or event) when choosing a past tense
form. Native speakers, on the other hand, show a greater ability to recognize the
overall development of the narrative and to make their choices accordingly.”
As shown here, the primary strategy of processing instruction cannot address
the issues related to the learning of Spanish preterit and imperfect. Hence, we
have no choice but to search in other areas for potentially effective techniques.
In the following sections, we will look at grammar rules, the language models
used in texts, and students’ learning problems observed during classroom activities to draw more implications to guide the design of the computer application.
INAPPROPRIATE GRAMMAR RULES AND LANGUAGE MODELS IN TEXTS
Although some studies of L2 learners of Spanish suggested that learners follow
certain acquisition sequences with preterite and imperfect during various stages
of their learning (e.g., Anderson, 1991; López-Ortega, 2000; see also Salaberry,
1999), it is likely that grammar rules play a partial role in the learners’ tendency
to depend on verb types (García & van Putte, 1988) to make a selection of the
verb form. Those grammar rules suggest that for verbs of action/event (e.g., to
eat, to walk), preterite is the rule, and imperfect is the exception; and for verbs
of state (e.g., to want, to be happy), imperfect is the rule, and preterite is the
exception. Since it is difficult for learners to determine when a case deals with
an “exception,” it results that learners tend to use preterite for all verbs of action/event and imperfect for all verbs of state. This phenomenon tells us that
better grammar explanations are needed.
The language models included in textbooks also seem to play a role in learners’ inability to use the broader context to select a verb form. Disjointed sentences and paragraphs filled with verbs in the past tense are predominantly the
language models used in textbooks to teach the uses of the two past tense verb
forms. The problem with disjointed sentences is that they may not carry any
contextual cues because they are too short. Consequently, they are not always
useful for teaching the use of contextual cues to select a verb form.
10
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
Paragraphs can be good models for the teaching of written discourse. However, giving learners a paragraph flooded with past tense verb forms as their
language model is like giving them a solved jigsaw puzzle. There are many
pieces of puzzle to be studied and many of them are interconnected. When it
comes to practicing and testing, a paragraph with many blank spaces to be filled
can cause problems since learners may be overwhelmed by the number of pieces
of puzzle to be solved. The contextual cues needed to resolve a piece of the
puzzle may be contained in the blank pieces of the puzzle to be filled in. Further, the number of blank spaces may make comprehending the meaning of the
paragraph difficult, which, in turn, may affect learners’ ability to recognize the
overall development of the narrative. Clearly, better language models are needed.
LEARNERS HAVE DIFFICULTY INTERPRETING AND APPLYING GRAMMAR RULES, WHICH ARE NOT EXHAUSTIVE IN DESCRIBING LANGUAGE
PATTERNS
The technical nature of grammar rules may also cause problems for learners.
Below are two examples of grammar rules that learners typically encounter in
textbooks:
1.
The preterite sentence indicates that an event began and ended over a
certain (finite) period of time. The preterite is used to focus on the completing or beginning of past actions or states.
2.
The imperfect is used to describe or characterize an open interval of
time. The imperfect is used for ongoing process of a state or event.
Although grammar rules can explain and connect various phenomena of past
tense forms in a simple and consistent manner, most of the principles expressed
in the rules seem too unnatural and vague to be useful for guiding language
learners in selecting a verb form for use in a specific context. This is because it
is more natural for learners to think about what message they intend to convey
when using the language, instead of determining whether “an event began and
ended over a certain period of time” as described by a grammar rule. As a matter of fact, learners often complain that grammar rules are too vague to be useful. Many learners find it difficult to determine if a case concerns description
(requiring imperfect) or completed action (requiring preterite). Even if those
learners know the rules by heart, they still have problem determining which
rule should be applied in the case at hand (although the chance of getting the
correct verb form is 50% in cases where only one of the two forms is acceptable, and 100% when both forms are acceptable for the context). Moreover,
even when learners have applied the correct rule, whether by chance or not,
they may still not know what message they have conveyed because what they
have achieved is applying a rule, not necessarily sending a message. This situation suggests that grammar explanations should tell us what message is conVolume 21 Number 2
11
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
veyed when using a certain form in a certain context, rather than simply directing us what form to use in what context.
In addition to the problem of interpreting grammar rules, it is likely that some
language patterns of Spanish have gone unrecorded in centuries of study as
Sinclair (1985) has pointed out for English or have simply been left out in grammar texts. If either of the above is true, those language patterns need to be brought
to the learners’ attention. (In fact, the author will confirm that indeed some
patterns have been omitted in grammar texts. Because learners will most likely
have been exposed to traditional grammar rules when they use the computer
application, the author decided that a data-driven learning approach as demonstrated by concordances should be used to modify their understanding of these
language patterns.
USING DIALOGUES FROM SOAP OPERAS TO PROVIDE POSITIVE INPUT
As suggested by Sharwood Smith (1993), there are two forms of input enhancement: positive and negative. The author chose positive input enhancement for
the envisioned computer application. This means that positive evidences of language patterns are given to learners to enhance or reformulate their internal
representation of the language and that the relevant linguistic characteristics of
the input are made salient.
Mexican soap opera clips were used to provide input for several reasons. As
mentioned earlier, disjointed sentences or paragraphs filled with only past tense
verbs have drawbacks as language models for learning Spanish aspect. In addition, they are not the most adequate models for demonstrating the uses of past
tense verb forms in spoken discourse. Like other video materials, soap opera
clips are good sources of authentic speech models for language learning because they provide “examples of situational language use by native speakers as
understood by other native speakers” (Garza, 1996, p. 2). Garza agreed with
Lonergan’s view (1984) that “[v]ideo brings a slice of real life into the classroom. It presents the complete communicative situation. Language learners not
only hear the dialogue, they also see the participants in the surroundings where
the communication takes place. This visual information not only leads to a fuller
comprehension of the spoken language, but also benefits learners in a number
of other ways.”
Indeed, “[b]ecause video allows for both audio and visual modalities of information input, the language and cultural material is more readily contextualized,
and thus, more accessible to the learner” (Garza, 1996, p. 4). These highly
contextualized language samples should provide better input than input solely
in written format. This is because the aural contextual cues, such as tone and
emotion, can enhance and conceptualize the language. The visual elements such
as place, motion, and gesture can enrich the information coming from the linguistic signal. Through this medium, language functions should be more effectively exemplified, and then conceptualized by the learners. Garza (1996) quoted
Vereshchagin and Kostomarov (1990) indicating that, “[f]acts perceived visu12
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
ally become the personal experience of the student” (p. 3). Thus, watching soap
operas clips in the target language is like witnessing (versus participating in)
real life scenarios unfolding in front of one’s eyes. Because soap operas usually
contain conversational dialogues and familiar life scenarios, it should be easy
for learners to understand the storyline, thus deriving the correct meaning of the
structure in question. These language uses taken from quasi-daily life scenarios,
which would have been difficult to recreate in a classroom setting using only
textbooks, should then be transferable to learners’ personal life situations. In
other words, these video clips can expand the limited discourse of the classroom and add to the likelihood that the input is comprehensible.
TEACHING ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME AND MAKING A LANGUAGE
PATTERN VISIBLE
As Lee and VanPatten (1995) and VanPatten (1996) have suggested, activity
designers and instructors should present only one thing at a time or break up a
grammatical item to facilitate input activities. This seems a good instructional
strategy, but breaking up a grammatical item to make the presentation and the
explanation less complex must vary from case to case. Because students reported problems with the so-called stative verbs (versus event/action verbs), the
author decided to focus on these verbs. (The author believes that the semantic
value of certain verbs is very complex and that some of their patterns are not
properly recorded in grammar rules.) In addition, instead of studying all the
verbs at once, dividing them into two groups (preterite and imperfect), she chose
to present one at a time in order to reveal their various usages. The current
application focuses on only one such verb, querer ‘to want.’ The purpose of the
program is to have learners examine the semantic value of this verb manifested
in a variety of contexts with the hope that it will facilitate the acquisition of
other verbs that exhibit similar semantic distributions. Hence, teaching one thing
at a time is operationalized here as teaching one verb at a time.
The program groups cases with preterite andimperfect and also affirmative
and negative statements into separate lessons. Grouping affirmative and negative structures separately is based on the fact that textbooks treat “not want”
using the preterite and “want” using the preterite separately, giving them very
different translations. In effect, their distinct (and shared) characteristics were
confirmed after studying their patterns. In sum, the content of the application is
categorized into four groups: (a) five lessons about “not want” using the preterite, (b) five lessons about “want” using the preterite, (c) four lessons about “not
want” using the imperfect, and (d) five lessons about “want” using the imperfect. The number of lessons in each category may increase in the future as more
useful scenes or additional usages of the verb are found.
The concept of grouping, or making an item visible, is similar to the concept
of using the keyword-in-context (KWIC) format in concordancers in which a
keyword in a passage is shown with some number of characters (e.g., 30 characters) preceding and following the keyword. In this way, the keyword is promiVolume 21 Number 2
13
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
nently displayed within the context(s) in which it appears in the passage (see
Tribble & Jones, 1997).3 Making the targeted item visible has been the real
value of using concordancers for language research or learning. According to
Johns (1986), “[b]y concentrating and making it easy to compare the contexts
within which a particular item occurs, it organizes data in a way that encourages
and facilitates inference and generalization. Such generalizations may leap out
of the contexts in an obvious fashion (for example, the word before ‘same’ is
almost always ‘the’), or may require a good deal more work on the part of the
user” (p. 159).
Grouping all the uses of a particular structure together in a single computer
lesson encourages learners to discover similarities and differences among uses
in that group. In other words, it encourages data-driven learning. For instance,
within all the clips included in the application described here, all the uses of
“not want” using preterite denote the meaning of “categorical refusal,” as many
textbooks have consistently shown. Nevertheless, contrary to what textbooks
have shown for “want + infinitive” using the preterite, the use of this structure
reveals a range of meanings instead of the one meaning of “tried.
THE COMPUTER APPLICATION
The application contains 19 lessons.4 The activities in each lesson surround a
story/video clip. Each lesson consists of five pages: Introduction page, Preview-questions page, Video page, Activity page, and Explanation page. Except
for the video clips (the input), all the accompanying headlines, captions, glosses,
key sentences containing the verbs shown on every page of the lesson, and the
instructions and explanations are given in English because they are not part of
the input presented to learners.
The Introduction Page
To help learners better understand the storyline in the clip, the Introduction
page provides background information about the story in the video and snapshots of the characters. That is, the Introduction page helps make the input/
video clips more comprehensible for learners.
The Preview-questions Page
In the Preview-questions page, students preview questions related to the content of the video that they are about to view. These questions are designed to
draw their attention to key information in the video that is relevant for interpreting the use of the verb in the video. Another function of this page is to continue
to help make the input/video clips more comprehensible for learners.
The Video Page
In the Video page, learners view the video clip. The relevant section of the
14
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
transcript of the dialogue appears on the screen at approximately the same time
the characters speak.5 The phrases in the transcript containing the form of the
verb in question are shown in boldface (and red) letters. Glosses of essential
vocabulary items appear to the left of the video (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Video Page for Pero no quería, no quería ir
As indicated earlier, textbooks tend to have learners study all the past tense
verb forms in a paragraph at one time. To increase learners’ ability to recognize
the overall development of the story and ensure that they use all contextual cues
for the interpretation of the meaning and use of a verb, only one incident of the
verb in the story is observed and analyzed by learners. When a scene containing
the key verb is identified, thematically related scenes before or after the key
scene are also retrieved. All these thematically related scenes are concatenated
into one clip to establish a meaningful storyline providing sufficient context to
explain the use of the verb form. These video clips are short, ranging from 35
seconds to 4 minutes.
The targeted verb is made aurally and visually salient. The audio file of the
sentence containing the verb is extracted from the video clip and is played at the
beginning of each clip to prompt students about the verb form in question and
the sentence containing that verb form. While the audio file is being played, the
corresponding section of the transcript is displayed in large, boldface, and underlined characters in the video window. Finally, the sentence containing the
verb is shown under SENTENCE on the left side of every page of the lesson to
constantly remind students what form they are studying (see Figure 2).
Volume 21 Number 2
15
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
Figure 2
Display of Salient Form of Pero no quería, no quería ir
The Activity Page
In the Activity page, students answer multiple-choice and open-response questions that they previously read on the Questions page.6 The purpose of having
students answer the questions is to help them identify key information in the
clip that determines the interpretation of the meaning of the targeted verb. It
also encourages them to draw inferences or make hypothesis about the use of
the verb in the clip before they read the Explanation page.
The Explanation Page
One of suggested input enhancement techniques mentioned by Sharwood Smith
(1993) is to give rule explanations. The Explanation page aims to explain the
verb form by providing detailed explanations of how and why it is used in the
video clips. Most of the theories explaining the use of the verb forms were
developed by the author based on her observations about various uses of the
verb in dialogues and responses of Spanish native speakers from different countries (5 Spaniards, 1 Mexican, 1 Puerto Rican, 1 Columbian, 1 Peruvian, 1 Costa
Rican) regarding the use of the verb in the video clips.
The Explanation page
1.
16
explains the speaker’s intention based on the story. As indicated earlier,
grammar rules do not tell learners much about the message being conveyed in a given context, and learners have problem using a more general context to select a verb form. The purpose of this section is to explain to students what message the speaker has conveyed using the verb
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
form in the specific context or the development of the story. Usually,
learners can derive the message on their own if they understand the
story. However, there are cases in which the message needs to be made
clear. In sum, the ultimate goal of this section is to help learners establish a correct form-meaning mapping (as processing instruction stresses)
and to recognize the context that yields that specific interpretation or
requires such a form.
2.
indicates, in the case of the preterite, what marks an event as ended if
the event in the story is considered terminated. This section follows the
line of reasoning of traditional grammatical rules.
3.
describes whether the alternative verb form is acceptable in the story,
why, what would happens if the alternative verb form were to be used,
and how that form would change the story. The purpose of this section
is to give learners a thorough understanding of the uses of both forms,
namely a full view of the semantic domain of the targeted structure. It
also teaches students what contexts would allow the use of both forms,
an area not typically covered in grammar books. This section is largely
based on survey responses of native speakers from different regions.
4.
provides a pragmatic rule explaining the usage of the verb form in the
video. The pragmatic rule is not meant to be applied alone or used as a
substitute for the comprehensive and integrative explanation provided
in the preceding sections.
Although this application provides explicit grammar explanation, a possibility for future design of other verbs is to have learners work on creating explanations individually or with peers. In other words, they would use these video
based materials like using a concordance output. The purpose is to encourage
learning by discovery, a true form of data-driven learning often practiced with
the use of corcordancers as learning and research tools.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
SLA research has shown that learners’ noticing of linguistic input positively
affects their learning of the targeted grammatical structure (Doughty, 1991;
Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Although input enhancement (i.e., making the targeted
grammatical item salient) increases the likelihood of learners’ noticing, “externally generated input enhancement does not automatically imply the internalization of that enhancement by the learner” (Sharwood Smith, 1991, p. 131).
Nevertheless, we should still ask how we can manipulate aspects of the input to
generate the most likely effective input-enhancement process.
It is not reasonable to think that there is a one-size-fits-all answer; input enhancement can come in many different forms. A method or technique that works
in one area may not be generalizable to other areas (Sharwood Smith, 1993).
Volume 21 Number 2
17
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
Therefore, what methods and techniques can best be used depends on the nature
of the targeted structure and many other factors. When teachers or CALL developers follow the general principles of input enhancement—a hypothesis about
ideal conditions for second language acquisition—in the design of an application, they should also consult other relevant areas to devise potentially effective
input enhancement techniques.
The input-enhancement hypothesis and processing instruction inform the design of the current application in two principal ways. First, the input-enhancement hypothesis tells us that input needs to be made salient for learners and that
providing positive evidence of language use is one style of input enhancement.
The use of highlighting, boldfacing, coloring, as well as giving metalinguistic
explanations are all forms of input enhancement in the application. Processing
instruction informs us that form-meaning mappings are important for input enhancement and additionally suggests breaking up a complex grammatical structures to make their presentation and explanation less complicated. Dividing up
the content of the video material and focusing on the usage of single forms of
the verb querer in short video clips reflect the basic tenets of processing instruction in the application.
The application demonstrates a new method of input enhancement developed
with multimedia technology. Its design capitalizes on the strengths of multimedia technology to facilitate the implementation of input-enhancement techniques.
It takes advantage of the rich input data found in soap operas dialogues, such as
audiovisual pragmatic markers and discourse cues to present high quality input
to learners. It also relies on observations concerning learners’ problems in the
acquisition of the targeted structure to determine what input-enhancement strategies work well for the structure in question. It takes advantage of computer
technology to create and deliver video-based materials in clearly salient ways
(e.g., large, colored fonts, synchronized captions, and glosses). Additionally, it
takes advantage of the data-driven learning concept—similar to what
concordancers can do—in grouping video clips of the same verb form, thereby
encouraging inference and generalization by learners. Further, it draws on the
author’s understanding and investigation of the patterns of these verb forms in
combination with linguistic and conversational principles to provide meaningful explanations for the uses of these verb forms. While the design of the application is built on sound theoretical and practical bases, it remains of course to
determine the extent of the effectiveness of the application’s design before it
can be claimed to be effective in inducing the process of input enhancement for
all learners under different circumstances.
Videos can provide valuable input for language learning and soap operas provide good spoken language models. However, locating, retrieving, and creating
a soap opera clip containing a specific grammatical item is a very time consuming task. Hence, a system that allows archiving, indexing, and retrieving broadcast video materials will make access to this kind of language data easier, thereby
making it easier for language educators to create applications with such materi18
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
als. The Virage Video Logger and Virage Solutions Server (see www.virage.com)
meets many of these requirements, but it only handles broadcast news because
it relies on recent advances made in broadcast news speech recognition. On the
other hand, many researchers have suggested that concordancers are very useful tools for language research and learning (e.g., Johns, 1986, 1990, 1998;
Rézeau, 2001; Tribble, 1990; Tribble & Jones, 1997). Unfortunately, to date,
concordancers are still text-based. The author believes that a video-based
concordancer will prove to be at least as useful a research and learning tool as a
text-based concordancer. At a minimum, it will make collecting video materials
for input enhancement less labor-intensive.
NOTES
1
This type of hypothesis is similar to the case of capitalizing on the learners’ analogizing tendencies used in
Tomasello and Hurron (1988, 1989). Both capitalize on learners’ strategies.
2
This method seems to fit the definition of providing positive evidence, as indicated by
Sharwood Smith (1993); hence it probably can be seen as a positive input enhancement.
3
The differences between a (text-based) concordance and the current application lie in
three major areas.
1. the way the data is displayed
A KWIC concordance can give a printout “with the keyword in a straight column
down the middle of the page with as much of the context as will fit running in
one line to right and left” (Tribble & Jones, 1997, p. 5). For obvious reasons,
video-based data cannot be displayed in the same manner.
2. the way the data is retrieved
Computer technology allows text-based concordancers to prepare a list of all the
occurrences and locations of a word or grammatical item with a few keystrokes.
However, a concordancer that works with video data is still to be invented.
3. the extent of the context to be shown
Because video data is retrieved manually, the context does not have to be arbitrarily truncated at either end of the citation by limiting the number of characters
preceding and following the keyword.
4
This application is currently delivered by WebCT. WebCT provides an environment
for course developers to easily put course materials in a password-protected environment. In this sense, WebCT should be considered here as a storage space allowing the
course developer to store and organize materials. In other words, it does not facilitate
the design of the application, nor the key features included in the application.
5
These video clips were reconstructed through RealVideo and Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL). SMIL allows developers to synchronize video, caption, and glossary screens. RealText controls the timing of the appearance of the captions and glosses.
6
WebCT provides tools such as Quiz that allow course developers to easily write test
questions.
Volume 21 Number 2
19
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. W. (1991). Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in
second language acquisition. In T. M. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 305-323).
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed
SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (1), 22-34. Retrieved from http://
llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/index.html
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in the search of research paradigms?
Language Learning & Technology, 1 (1), 19-43. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.
edu/vol1num1/chapelle/default.html
Collentine, J. (1998). Cognitive principles and CALL grammar instruction: A mind-centered, input approach. CALICO Journal, 15 (1-3), 1-18.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from
an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly,
32, 39-60.
García, E. C., & van Putte, F. C. M. ( 1988). The value of contrast: Contrasting the value
of strategies. IRAL (International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching), 26 (4), 263-280.
Garza, T. (1996). The Message is the medium: Using video materials to facilitate foreign
language performance. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 2, 118.
Hwu, F. (2003). Learners’ behaviors in computer-based input activities elicited through
tracking technologies. CALL Journal, 16 (1), 5-29.
Johns, T. (1998). Whence and whither classroom concordancing? In T. Bongaerts, P. de
Haan, S. Lobbe, & H. Wekker (Eds.), Computers in English language learning (pp. 9-33). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
Johns, T. (1990). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the
context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), Classroom
concordancing, English Language Research Journal, iv (pp. 293-313). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Johns, T. (1986). Micro-concord: A language learner’s research tool. System, 14 (2), 151162.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Lonergan, J. (1984). Video in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20
CALICO Journal
Fenfang Hwu
López-Ortega, N. R. (2000). Tense, aspect, and narrative structure in Spanish as a second
language. Hispania, 83, 487-502.
Rézeau, J. (2001). Concordances in the classroom: The evidence of the data. In A. Chambers & G. Davies (Eds.), ICT and language learning: a European perspective
(pp. 147-166). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Salaberry, M. R. (1999). The development of Spanish tense verbal morphology in classroom L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 20 (2), 151-178.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second
language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.),
Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different
types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research,
7 (2), 118-132.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Sinclair, J. C. (1985). Retrospect and prospect: Selected issues in English in the World
Tomasello, M., & Hurron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting
overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237-246.
Tomasello, M., & Hurron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden
path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385-395.
Tribble, C. (1990). Concordancing and an EAP writing program. CAELL Journal, 1-2,
10-15.
Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1997). Concordances in the classroom. A resource for teachers.
Houston, TX: Athelstan Publications.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Theory and research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Westfall, R., & Foerster, S. (1996). Beyond aspect: New strategies for teaching the preterite and the imperfect. Hispania, 79, 550-560.
Volume 21 Number 2
21
Input Enhancement and Input Processing in Multimedia CALL
AUTHOR’S BIODATA
Fenfang Hwu is an Assistant Professor of Spanish Linguistics in the Department of Romance Languages at Bowling Green State University. Her recent
research projects include the study of the pragmatic meanings of Spanish aspect
in conversations, the use of tracking technology, and the development of techniques to study learners’ behaviors and learning styles.
AUTHOR’S ADDRESS
Fenfang Hwu
Department of Romance Languages
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
Phone: 419/372-8069
Fax:
419/372-7332
Email: fhwu@bgnet.bgsu.edu
22
CALICO Journal