Attention, Awareness, And FL Behaviour

8/8/2019 Attention, Awareness, And FL Behaviour

1/43

Attention, Awareness, andForeign Language BehaviorRonald I? LeowGeorgetown University

The 1990s have witnessed a substantial increase ofempirical studies in the secondforeign language (L2)class-room setting that have in some way addressed L2 learningunder a so-called form-focused perspective. A review ofmany of these studies reveals that attempts are usuallymade through some kind of instructional treatment o rexposure designed t o draw learners' attention t o andsubsequent noticing of targeted linguistic forms in theL2 data o r input. Strands of research include inputflooding, input enhancement, implicit/explicit learningconditions, processing instruction, explicit/implicit feed-back, and classroom-based tasks. The theoretical premiseunderlying these studies is that some form of attention(and awareness) to linguistic data is crucial for L2 learningt o take place, a premise not addressed methodologically inmany of the studies (cf Leow, 1999a, for a methodologicalreview of studies conducted under an attentional frame-work in the 1990s). My study in this volume is part of aseries of empirical investigations (cf. Leow, 1998a, 1998b,2000; Rosa & ONeill, 1999) that have sought t o firstestablish methodologically that attention was indeed paidto targeted forms in the input before the effects of suchattention, and consequently awareness, could be statisti-cally analyzed.

Department of Spanish and Portuguese.Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to the author,Departmentof Spanish& Portuguese, ICC 403,37th& 0 Sts.,NW, Washing-ton, DC 20057, Internet: [email protected]

113


2/43

114 Awareness a nd Foreign Language Behavior

To operationalize the process of attention in SLA, I(1998a) ested and found empirical support, a t the morpho-logical level, for the fine-grained analysis of attentionpostulated by Tomlin and Villa (1994). To control for thepotential variable of prior knowledge, only adult learnersof Spanish with relatively no prior knowledge of the tar-geted forms in the input were included in the participantpool. To address the issue of internal validity, think-aloudprotocols were used t o gather online data while learnerswere completing a specially designed problem-solving ask(three versions of a crossword puzzle). The role of aware-ness, not addressed in this 1998a study, was pursued in thepresent study below in relation t o Schmidts (1990, 1993,1995) noticing hypothesis in SLA. The data used fo r thisstudy came from my other two studies (1998a, 1998b) thatemployed similar research designs using online data elici-tation procedures. Statistical analyses of the think-aloudprotocols revealed that higher levels of awareness ap-peared to correlate with an increased usage of hypothesistesting and morphological rule formation and that moreawareness contributed t o more recognition and writtenproduction of the noticed forms. These findings were bothreplicated by Rosa and ONeill (19991, who extended myline of investigation by exploring the role of awareness atthe syntactic level in the context of a problem-solving task.

One debatable topic in SLA research is whether the roleawareness plays is crucial for subsequent processing of L2data t o which learners are exposed. To address this thornyquestion, I (2000)replicated the present study below withseveral methodological features added to the research de-sign of the original study. I found that learners who dem-onstrated awareness of the targeted morphological formsduring the experimental exposure appeared t o have takenin and produced in writing significantly more of theseforms compared with learners who demonstrated a lack ofsuch awareness. In addition, aware learners significantlyincreased their ability to recognize and produce in writingthe targeted morphological forms after exposure, whereasthe unaware learners failed to do so. One interestingmethodological feature of this study was the use ofmultiple data-elicitation measures (both online and off-line) of learners internal processes. Online measures were


3/43

Leow 115

think-aloud protocols gathered not only during the experi-mental exposure but also while performing the postexpo-sure tasks. Offline measures were probe questions, arecognition and written production task, and a follow-upinterview with the unaware participants, In addition, fol-lowing my previous studies, I used both quantitative andqualitative analyses to probe more deeply into the data.

From a theoretical perspective, the findings of studiesthat have employed online data elicitation measures orprocedures t o gather information on the attention learnersactually pay to targeted forms o r structures in the inputand their level of awareness of such data have indicatedan important role for both attention and awareness insubsequent processing of L2 data. From a methodologicalperspective, the use of think-aloud protocols has beencritiqued anecdotally (e.g., Seliger, 1983). One potentiallimitation (not empirically supported) is its potential intro-duction of an additional task during the processing of L2data. However, the use of online data collection proceduresis clearly higher in internal validity, one of the majorlimitations of many current attentional studies in SLAThey provide relatively more substantial evidence of whatis being measured when compared to offline measures. Inaddition, online data can be subjected to qualitative analy-ses that provide a richer source of information on learnersattention and awareness, a luxury not afforded by offlinemeasures. Indeed, while online data have provided moreinsights into learners internal processes, the use of onlinemeasures has also revealed a disturbing finding, namely,how representative are the participants in the differentexperimental groups? In my study (2000),although partici-pants were exposed to the same task with the same instruc-tions, one half performed differently from the other half interms ofprocessing the L2 data. Other studies (e.g., Alanen,1995; Leow, this volume, 1998a, 1998b; Rosa & Oeil1,1999) have all found similar results revealing that someparticipants in one group were performing similarly t othose in other groups.The roles of attention and awareness, without doubt,are areas of research tha t warrant further research inSLA. The current challenge to researchers is to testfurther the theoretical approaches to the roles of attention


4/43

116 Awareness and Foreign Language Behavior

and awareness in SLA and improve the operationalizationof both attention and what constitutes awareness in L2learning in studies conducted under an attentional frame-work in the classroom setting (Leow, 199913).In addition,the use of multiple data elicitation procedures (both onlineand offline) and the need for both quantitative and quali-tative analyses of elicited data can only improve the re-search designs of future attentional studies (cf. Leow,1999a,2000).

The role of consciousness and awareness in the human atten-tional system while learning a foreign (FL) o r second language(L2) has been particularly controversial in the fields of cognitivepsychology, cognitive science, and second language acquisition(SLA). On the one hand, authors have suggested avoiding theumbrella term consciousness due t o its ambiguity, vagueness,and difficulty in operationalizing this notion (e.g., Hardcastle,1993;Joordens & Merikle, 1992;McLaughlin, 1990;Tomlin& Villa,1994). For example, Tomlin and Villa suggested that consciousattention may not be as crucial as the attentional function ofdetection, which can even be dissociated from awareness. On theother hand, though acknowledging the terminological confusioncreated by the conflation of distinct senses of consciousness incurrent research, Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1994, 1995) still opted t oaddress the notion of consciousness in the area of attention andlanguage learning. According to Schmidts noticing hypothesis,consciousness, in the sense of awareness of specific forms in theinput at the level of noticing (conscious attention),is necessary forlanguage learning t o take place. This study reports the findings ofa qualitative and quantitative study to address awarenesss rolein the human attentional system and its effects on L2 behavior. Tothis end, I analyzed both the think-aloud protocols produced byadult L2 learners of Spanish completing a problem-solving taskand their immediate performances on 2 post-exposure assessmenttasks, a recognition and written production task.


5/43

Leow 117

Theoretical BackgroundSeveral researchers have preferred t o omit any role of con-

sciousness in language learning and have argued for a dissociationbetween learning and awareness (e.g., Carr & Curran, 1994;Curran & Keele, 1993; Hardcastle, 1993; Tomlin & Villa, 1994;Velmans, 1991). Velmans postulated that task demands may ap-pear to involve consciousness due to the need for focal-attentiveprocessing. However, in some cases focal-attentive processes mayoperate effectively without consciousness being present. Tomlinand Villa (1994) viewed the process of attention as being toocoarse-grained in SLA studies, like, for example, the metaphor oflimited cognitive capacity. They proposed that conscious aware-ness (noticing), as presented in SLA research, may not play sucha crucial role as other attentional functions dissociated from it.According t o Tomlin and Villa, SLA research also needs t o addressa fine-grained analysis of attention that incorporates the following3 attentional functions: alertness (overall readiness to deal withincoming stimuli or data), orientation (direction of attentionalresources t o a certain type of stimuli), and detection (cognitiveregistration of the stimuli).l Though none of these attentionalfunctions requires awareness either to operate or as the result ofprocessing, detection is the one closest t o awareness. Detection iscrucial for further processing t o take place and it is ultimately onthis level th at acquisition must operate (Tomlin 8z Villa, 1994,p. 193).

Studies cited t o lend empirical support for the dissociationbetween attention and awareness at the level of detection inlanguage learning include studies that have used semantic prim-ing tasks (e.g,, Marcel, 1983), or a serial reaction time task toaddress learning sequences of input (e.g., Curran & Keele, 1993;Nissen & Bullemer, 1987). However, these studies have certainlimitations. As Schmidt (1995)pointed out, several methodologicalproblems plagued both studies with the categorization of partici-pants levels of awareness and the potential for other interpreta-tions of the findings.2 n addition, operationalizing and measuring


6/43


the dissociation between attention and awareness a t the level ofdetection remains a problematic and thorny issue.On the other hand, the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990,1993, 1994, 1995) has acknowledged the role of consciousness inlanguage learning and argued that learners must first consciouslynotice-that is, demonstrate a conscious apprehension andawareness of some particular form in the input-before any sub-sequent processing of tha t form can take place. In other words,noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for the conver-sion of input t o intake for learning. According t o Schmidt, learnersselect specific parts of the input they are exposed t o which thenbecome available for further processing. Indeed, Schmidt (1990, p.139) argued strongly against any intake of input tha t the learnerhas not noticed. He appears to equate noticing with attention plusawareness (1990, p. 132; 1993, pp. 209-212). He operationalizednoticing as a cognitive operation that takes place both during andimmediately after exposure t o the input that is available forself-report (1990, p. 132).

To support his argument for the role of consciousness in thesense of awareness at the level of noticing in SLA, Schmidt citedprimarily a diary study of his own personal attempts to learnPortuguese (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) and SLA studies that haveaddressed (a)enhanced input designed t o draw learners attentiont o specific forms in the input (e.g., Doughty, 1991; White, 1991;White, Spada, Lightbown & Ranta, 1991); (b) discourse studiesdemonstrating limited occurrences of acquisition-enhancing ne-gotiation sequences (e.g., Pica, 1991, 1992);(c) factors such assaliency of forms (Bardovi-Harlig, 1987; Sorace, 1991); (d) compe-tition between form and meaning (Bransdorfer, 1992;Mangnbhai,1991;VanPatten, 1990); and (e) uptakestudies, tha t is, learnersclaims regarding what had drawn their attention and what theyhad learned during the lesson (e.g.,Slimani, 1987,1992).However,the limitations of these studies t o support the role of consciousnessin the sense of awareness at the level of noticing include thefollowing: (a) There is a clear mismatch between processing L2input while performing diary entries and processing incoming


7/43

Leow 119

inpu t in natural interaction; and (b) he other studies cited did notspecifically address the role of consciousness or awareness andconsequently can only provide anecdotal evidence for the noticinghypothesis. In other words, these studies cannot explain what roleattention, and consequently awareness, played in learners behav-ioral patterns.

Robinson (1995a) attempted to reconcile these two positionsby proposing to define the concept of noticing to mean detectionplus rehearsal in short-term memory, prior to encoding in long-term memory (p. 296). According to Robinson (see also Cowan,1988, p. 165 and Shriffin, 1993, p. 195), activation in short-termmemory must exceed a certain threshold before it becomes a partof awareness. Thus, Robinson identified noticing with what isboth detected and then further activated following th e allocationof attentional resources from a central executive (p. 297). Re-hearsal occurring after detection is viewed from a capacitymodel of at tent ion (e.g., Wickens, 1989), which sees resourcesallocated to accomplish different types of task demands thatmay call for either data-driven or conceptually driven processing.Citing Best (19921, Robinson described data-driven processing asstimuli encoded in small pieces a nd later assembled in workingmemory. One example, according to Best, may be the visualmarks that make up a word. On the other hand , conceptuallydriven processing is top-down and stems from an effort tointegrate encoded stimuli within the context of surrounding stim-uli. According to Best (1992, p. 76), this type of processing drawson expectations or plans derived from the activation of priorknowledge or schemata and, as Robinson (p. 298) points out, notunlike t he formal content reading schemata (cf. Carrell, 1992). Insum, Robinson viewed awareness as the functionof the interpre-tation of the nature of the encoding and retrieval processes re-quired by the task (p. 301) and as not only critical to noticing butalso distinguishing noticing from simple detection (p. 298). In th isway, concurring with Schmidts contention that no learning canoccur without awareness at th e level of noticing, Robinson assignssimple detection (without awareness) a less crucial role in the


8/43

120 Awareness a nd Foreign Lang uage Behavior

encoding of information into short-term memory in languagelearning than that espoused by Tomlin and Villa (1994) and others.Operationalizing and Measuring Awareness

The terminological and theoretical confusion in current psy-cholinguistic theory of attention in SLA appears to be mirrored incurrent empirical studies that have followed these lines of theo-retical discussion. Operationalizing and measuring awareness inlanguage learning have been largely problematic due t o (a)differ-ent definitions of what constitutes awareness; (b) the rapidity ofa learners subjective experience of cognitive registration; and(c) the potential inability to verbalize ones awareness (Schmidts1995,p.29, higher level of awareness).

Both artificial and natural language studies have operation-alized awareness. Artificial language studies (e.g.,Curran & Keele,1993; Dulaney, Carlson, & Dewey, 1984; Reber, 1967, 1969, 1976,1989, 1992; Reber, Allen, & Regan, 1985) have operationalizedawareness as participants? ability t o verbalize the rules of asequence of stimuli in response to a probe or question as towhether they noticed any pattern of rule formation underlying thestimuli. However, other researchers have critiqued this operation-alization of awareness (e.g., Robinson, 1995b; Shanks & St. John,1994) for its potential impact on eliciting misleading answers ifparticipants had learned something other than the rules embed-ded in the input.

In natural languages, using a questionnaire assessing learn-ers awareness has been relatively popular (e.g., Carr & Curran,1994; Curran & Keele, 1993; Hartman, Knopman, & Nissen, 1989;Nissen & Bullemer, 1987; Robinson, 1995b), though with somevariation and not without potential validity concerns. For exam-ple, Robinson used a yes/no written questionnaire t o elicit 3 levelsof awareness during a training session. It asked participantswhether they (a> noticed any rules, (b) looked for rules, and( c ) could verbalize the rules. Robinson administered this ques-tionnaire immediately after the completion of a transfer test (a


9/43

Leow 121

grammaticality judgment task), thereby potentially compromis-ing learners ability t o separate what they noticed during the taskand what they noticed during the training session.

Hartman et al. (1989)operationalized awareness by measur-ing learners ability to indicate underlying patterns they noticedduring exposure t o 10-word sequences. However, as Schmidt(1995) pointed out, by classifying aware participants vs. un-aware participants on their ability to identify 3+ consecutivewords (aware), hey placed participants in the unaware groupwho did not really represent participants who were unawarebutrather who were more likely partially aware.

There has been (a) considerable controversy regarding therole of awareness in language learning, (b) inconclusive evidencefor its effects on L2 learners behavior, and (c ) two methodologicalproblems in addressing its role in language learning: namely,defining precisely what constitutes awareness and operationaliz-ing or measuring it.Tomlin and Villa (1994) provided a restricted definition ofawareness derived from SLA (e.g., Schmidt, 1990) and cognitivescience (e.g., Schacter, 1992): Awareness refers to a particularstate of mind in which an individual has undergone a specificsubjective experience of some cognitive content or external stimu-lus (Tomlin & Villa, 1994, p. 193). Allport (1988) listed threecriteria as important for establishing whether awareness is dem-onstrated or not: (a)a show of some behavioral o r cognitive changedue t o the experience, (b)a report of being aware of the experience,and (c) a description of this subjective experience. In their reviewof the operationalization of awareness, Carr and Curran (1994)provided several methodological assessments of awareness thatinclude noting changes in learners behavioral patterns togetherwith some form of meta-awareness; that is, reporting on theircognitive registration of the incoming stimuli. However, the timingof operationalizing awareness, that is, while exposed to L2 data o rafter such exposure, appears crucial in addressing its role inlanguage learning. If one assumes tha t learners create a mentalrepresentation of a detected o r noticed form while interacting with


10/43


such a form, then their level or degree of awareness should havean impact on what they encode and later retrieve from theirmemory. Because post-exposure questions/probes and question-naires have proven problematic in measuring what role awarenessplays during learners actual interaction with L2 data, the use ofconcurrent think-aloud protocols should provide a clearer pictureof learners allocation of cognitive resources, the role of awareness,and potential levels o r degrees of awareness while processing L2forms.3

MethodThough at present operationalizing o r measuring the poten-

tial for dissociation between awareness and detection in languagelearning poses difficulties, one can test Schmidts noticing hy-pothesis (1990,etc.) with respect t o the role of levels of awareness.To this end, the present study investigated the role of awarenessand its potential effects on learners immediate behavior on botha recognition and written production task, addressing the re-search question: How do different levels of awareness of morpho-logical forms in a problem-solving task influence learners mentalrepresentations and subsequent recognition and accurate writtenproduction of such forms?

Before the study could address the role of levels of awareness,it needed to establish that noticing did indeed occur. I definednoticing as some form of subjective awareness of new targetedlinguistic forms in L2 data as revealed in learners think-aloudprotocols produced while completing a problem-solving task. Inthis task, I operationalized noticing as making a verbal or writtencorrection of the targeted form (e.g., self-correction after noticinga mismatch between ones answer and that provided by anotherclue), and/or commenting on the targeted linguistic forms (includ-ing expressions such as mmm, I see, OK, interesting, cool, etc.).To address the levels of awareness, I examined the think-aloudprotocols produced by the learners from the point of view ofTomlin and Villas (1994) restricted definition of awareness


11/43

Leow 123

(above) together with the following methodological criteriaadapted from previous research: (a) a show of some behavioral o rcognitive change (e.g., verbal o r written production of the stem-change of the targeted form) due t o the experience; and either(b) a report of being aware of the experience o r (c) some form ofmetalinguistic description of the underlying rule. I did not asklearners t o report or describe any morphological rule found in thetask.

Participants. Participants were 28 beginning students ofSpanish as an L2 comprising a subset of a larger pool of partici-pants (85)with no previous knowledge or recognition of the tar-geted forms (cf. questionnaire Appendix A).* I also carefullyselected these participants for their performances on the pretestand on the experimental task to provide a consistent baselineperformance for all (see Analysis, below). Before participating inthe experiment, their formal exposure to Spanish was approxi-mately 7 .5 hours or 3 weeks. They were enrolled in a first-yearSpanish program that promoted all 4 skills in an information-sharing context.

Targeted morphological forms. The linguistic forms were theirregular third person singular and plural preterit forms ofstem-changing -ir verbs in Spanish. For example, the verb repetir to repeat is conjugated in the preterit:

repeti I repeated, repetiste you repeated, repitidhe/she/you repeated,repetimos we repeated, repitieronthey/you repeated.

There is a stem-change in both the third singular and plural formswhere the vowel e in the stem changes to an i. Similarly, -ir verbstha t have a stem-changing -0- lso undergo this irregularity. Forexample, the verb morir to die is conjugated in the preterit:

mori I died,moriste you died,mgri6 he/she/you died,morimos we died,mgrieron they/you died.

I selected these morphological forms for their potential in ad-dressing the process of attention and subsequently the role of


12/43

124 Aw aren ess an d Foreign Langua ge Behavior

awareness during performance on the type of experimental expo-sure task chosen here.Experimental exposure task. Because it was imperative t oestablish the presence of awareness at least at the level of noticing,I chose the crossword puzzle for the following3 reasons. First, theproblem-solving nature of the crossword puzzle dictates the de-gree of attention learners pay t o the task and the L2 data. Second,the crossword puzzle promotes some form of behavioral or cogni-tive change (subjective awareness) due t o the design or format ofthe task. Third, this task encourages naturally occurring process-ing that lends itself to the use of think-alouds and therefore shouldnot have any substantial effect on participants performances. Toencourage participants noticing of the targeted linguistic formswhile completing the crossword puzzle, I manipulated other cluesin the crossword t o provide the stem-changing vowels in theirregular forms.For example, the uof rnuri6 was provided by theu of t u Lyour erived from the clue E s un adjet ivo posesivo(segunda persona s ingular ) It is a possessive adjective (secondperson singular),while the iofrepiti6 was provided by the iof

S L derived from the clue El contrario de en espafi01,~thereby promoting some form of attention to the mismatch be-tween the 2 vowels in question (cf. Appendix B).

Pre- and post-exposure assessm ent task s . I measured partici-pants intake and written production of the linguistic forms understudy by 2 tasks. Each task had 15 items, of which 5 weredistractors. A multiple-choice recognition assessment task (cf.Leow, 1993, 1995; Shook, 1994) measured participants intake. Inthis task participants circled 1of 4 ossible completions t o form agrammatical sentence. The items used on the pre- and post-testsincluded the same verbs. To promote greater recognition of thelinguistic items t o which participants were recently exposed, theseitems were similar t o the clues on the crossword, with thefollowing modifications: I changed the subjects of the verbs andrandomly assigned the order of the items (cf. Appendix C). Tomeasure participants ability to produce the correct forms in astructured but different context, I designed a fill-in-the-blank

66 0


13/43

Leow 125

written production task. I also provided the English gloss and theSpanish infinitive t o ensure production of the targeted linguisticforms (cf Appendix D).Procedure

One class session before performing the experimental expo-sure task, the regular instructor formally presented the regularf o r m s of -ir verbs (verbal conjugations) in the preterit to theparticipants on the blackboard. I did not consider teacher bias afactor in this study for the following2 reasons: (a)The informationparticipants received from their instructors was controlled be-cause instructors followed specific instructions in their presenta-t i o q 6 and (b) this information would not have an impact on whatthis study was investigating. After this formal exposure to thetargeted forms, I then administered the pretest. I randomly or-dered the 2 assessment tasks t o address any potential effect oftask order.

On the day of the experiment, participants reported t o thelanguage laboratory during their regular classroom period. Theyreceived a packet comprising a cover page with an agreementsection and instructions explaining the nature of the tasks. Par-ticipants were informed that there were specific instructions inthe packets. The instructions for the experimental task weredesigned t o alert participants t o the task and orient their attentiont o the presence of the targeted forms. These instructions were:

Here is a crossword puzzle similar to the ones you havedone in class. Use the clues provided and see if you cansuccessfully complete this crossword. Please note thatsome of the formsof the verbs are IRREGULAR.Asyou do the crossword, try to speak aloud into the micro-phone your thouphts WHILE you perform the task for eachword, NOT AFTER. Include the numbers of the clues alsowhile you are thinking aloud. Please try t o speak in a clearvoice.


14/43

126 Aw areness and Foreign Language Behavior

The tape-recorders were turned on and the participantsproceeded to complete the crossword puzzle that lasted 10minuteso r less. Once the crossword puzzle was completed, participantsturned off the recorders and immediately performed the post-exposure recognition and written production task, again randomlyordered t o address the potential effects of task order. They couldnot refer back t o the puzzle.

Analysis and ResultsFirst, t o establish that participants did indeed notice the

targeted forms while completing the crossword puzzle, I scoredtheir transcribed think-aloud protocols, using the following crite-ria: any verbal o r written correction or comment on each targetedform in the input scored one point, for a maximum total of10 points. To establish a consistent baseline performance for allparticipants, I included in the study only participants who scoredzero on the pretest and produced 100% correct forms on thecrossword (for example, someone who did not complete cluenumber 12 down, thereby leaving the incorrect corregio, waseliminated). This strict selection of participants eliminated 57 ofthe original 85 participants.

To address the levels of awareness, I initially examined eachthink-aloud protocol from 2 broad categories (+ cognitive change,k meta-awareness) using the following criteria: (a) + cognitivechange,-meta-awareness indicated a show of some behavioral orcognitive change due t o the experience; and (b) + cognitivechange, + meta-awareness included either (i) a report of beingaware of the experience andor (ii) some form of metalinguisticdescription of the underlying morphological rule. However, theprotocols soon revealed the need t o address two issues: (a) thedefinition of what constitutes a report of being aware of theexperience, that is, meta-awareness; and (b) the more subtle


15/43

Leow 127

degrees of meta-awareness. A few instances of reports occurredin the protocols, such as:

(1) . . he opposite of no, so it is supposed to be si, so 11acrossis gonna be mint ieron (fills in m i n t i e r o n ) . . .(2) . . 9 across . . .si,mmm, it would appear that mentir, thatwould not be correct, so 11horizontal would no longer be m e ntieron and is now mint ieron, so I have to remember that . . .(3) . . . four down would be t u , so d u r m i 6 (writes in d u r m i 6 )done cool. . .To arrive at a coding of reports, I examined the complete

protocols in which these few statements were found. The firststatement was found in the following protocol:

(4) . . . 11across, (reads clue) . . . mentir, mentieron, lets seeif that agrees with 9 down . . . the opposite of no, so it issupposed to be si, so 11 across is gonna be mint ieron (fills inm i n t i e r o n ) . . .corregir . . . orregid, maybe? Lets check 12 down. . . Im ju st gonna put corrigi6, kind of lazy (fills in corrigi6) ..24,. . reads clue) repetieron, maybe? Lets check 25 down. . .the verb t o go in Spanish, ir, so its gonna be repitieron (fillsinrepi t ieron) . ..

Because there was no explicit reference to either criterion (a), areport of being aware of the experience, or criterion (b), some formof metalinguistic description of the underlying rule, I decided toview instances of such statements as demonstrating only a behav-ioral or cognitive change. Consequently, I coded the targeted formsminti6, corrigib, and repitieron as + cognitive change, - meta-awareness, - morphological rule.

The second statement was found in the context of the follow-ing protocol:

(5) . . 5 down . . pedieron, p id iero n actually, 9 across . . . si,mmm, it would appear that mentir, that would not be correct,so 11 horizontal would no longer be ment i e ron and is nowmint ieron, so I have to remember that (changes ment i e ron to


16/43


mint ieron) (pause) . . 12 . . .si, oh, alright, well, I guess I madeanother mistake, corregir is not corregio, it is corrigio (changescorregio t o corrigi6) . . . 17 down, oh, I made another mistake,19 would be se durmieron instead of se dormieron (changesdormieron t o d u rm i e ro n ) . . .

Though this participant did not verbalize the underlying morpho-logical rule, he did appear t o have demonstrated a report of suchan experience and I coded all the targeted forms pidieron, min-tieron, corrigio, and durmieron as + cognitive change, + meta-awareness, - morphological rule.

The third statement was found in the context of the followingprotocol:

(6) . . .12 down,si . . . the stem changes from e t o i . . corrigio(writes in corrigid) . . .number 19dormir . .duermieron, nowlets see where is number 17 down? oh se durm iero n, con a witha u . . .repetir, ellos repitieron? I think it has a stem change,25down ir,yes! . . . four down would be tu , so d u rm i b (writes ind u r m i d ) done cool, I like this. Number 5 eZZos of pedir, theyasked, pid ieron and its good . . ., nine is gonna be si againmintieron and obviously I spelled number 11wrong so I canfix that (changes mentieron to mintieron).

Clearly this participant demonstrated not only a report of such anexperience (d u rm i o ,pidieron, and mint ieron) but also verbalizedthe underlying morphological rule (corrigio, dur mie ron , and repi-t ieron).I coded all the targeted forms + cognitive change, + meta-awareness, + morphological rule.

Table 1presents samples of the two categories of awarenessas revealed by the protocols.

Two judges agreed upon the re-coding of the targeted formsin Category A. They then scored each targeted form found on over50% of randomly selected protocols for levels of awareness. Inter-rater reliability was 100%. Based on the results, I assigned 15participants who fulfilled criterion (a) and also fulfilled eithercriterion (bi) and/or criterion (bii) t o Category A (+ cognitive


17/43

Leow 129

Table 1S a m p l e s of the Tw o Cat egor i e s of A w a r e n e s sCategory A(+ cognitive change, + meta-awareness,kmorphological rule)Coding Decision Samples(participantsfulfilled criteria (11,(21,and (3) andcoded +morphological rulefor these forms)(participantsfulfilled criteria ( l ) ,(2)but not (3)andcoded-morphologicalrule for these forms)

- 1 2 down is si so the stem changes e to i, corrigio . . .- looks like all the es are becoming is in the stems . . .- 4 down (mumble) t u so dormir is irregular in thethird person so thats gotta be durmio with a u . . .- mmm alright , the s tems are changing, from e to iand a h o to u . . .- and the verb to go is ir . . . oh cool, s o th at correctsnumber 24 across, repitieron, so you find out thatsir O K . . .- number 5 ellos o f ped i r . . .pidieron and it is good . . .- so 11horizontal would no longer be mentieron andis now mintieron, so I have to remember th at(changesmentieron to mint ieron) . . .

Category B(+ cognitive change,-meta-awareness,-morphological rule)Coding Decision Samples~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(participantsfulfilled onlycriterion (1)andcoded as above)

- 1down divirtieron . . .- third person plural preferio, prefir io . . .- 12 down opposite of no is si (changescorregio tocorr igi6) . . .- to go e n espaiioE25 ir (changes repetieron torepi t ieron) . . .- 17 down, its tu so it turns se dormieron to sedurmieron . . .

change, + meta-awareness, -t morphological rule). Thirteenparticipants who fulfilled only criterion (a)for the targeted formsI assigned t o Category B (+ cognitive change, - meta-awareness,- morphological rule).


18/43

130 Aw areness and Foreign Lang uage Behavior

Qualitative Ana lysisA careful analysis of the think-aloud protocols revealed that

meta-awareness appears t o correlate with the use of conceptuallydriven processing, such as hypothesis testing and morphologicalrule formation. For example, here are samples of hypothesis test-ing from several of the participants think-aloud protocols inCategory A:

(7) . . ellos repitieron? I think it has a stem change, 25 down,ip;yes! . . .. . . I guess 1 2 down is si again so it is d6ja vu . . .. . .11across is mentieron I wonder what it is . . . ets see,its ellos and 9 down, Ill bet it is el contrario so its min-tieron . . .. . . uyer mi profesoru corregio, bet its corregio, I bet Imright, what is 12 down? el contrario de n o . . . corrigio! itswith the z, what do you know? . . .. . .OK, 3 down la formu de . . .uestirse, vestirse ellu ues ellaues-, uisto, vis tio, se uis tio si, s i (name) because we thoughtvestirse is an irregular verb . . .. . .well, I guess I made another mistake, corregir is notcorregid, its corrigi6 . . .. . .number 9, the opposite of no ha! now I see I am wrongha with my little theory about e t o ie and o t o ue becausethis one here I just had e in just one space so I assume itdidnt change but I was wrong because it changed to an ibecause of the i in si so I just changed my answer fornumber 11O K . . .. . . OK third person plural form of the verb ped i r theyasked for, 5 down . . . edieron (pause)OK I am wonderingwhether because I have pid ieron (spells out) and I amthinking it should be p e - but t ha t would make it dormeo


19/43

Leow 131

with an e instead of i . . . I guess I will see how the otherones go and take a look at that one again . . .

Samples of morphological rule formation found in Category Asparticipants include the following:

(8) . . .12 down, si, he stem changes e to i, corrigio . . .. . .pedir is pedieron, no, geez, these stem changes arereally fooling me . . , . .1 7 down, adjetiuo posesiuo segu nda persona singulal;I have seen this before, I just . . . tu . . .mmm all of thesees change t o an i . . .. . . I think were seeing a pattern here (after commentingon the targeted forms being irregular) . . .pidieron defi-nitely, also irregular . . .. . .OK the opposite of no is si which means that for 11across I have mentieron but it should be mintieron for thethird person plural past tense of mentil; m intieron whichmakes me now realize that pidieron with an i is probablyright since the e in mentir changes t o an i so the e i n p e d i ris also going t o change t o an i as well . . .. . . OK, now here yet againprefe- (spells out) is going t ochange to pre fi- prefirio . . .. . . It should be t u . . .durmi6, mmm, alright, the stemsare changing now, from e t o i . . .o to u,mmm . . .. . .I guess I have to throw a u n whenever its a dormirse-like infinitive . . .. . .OK 12 down, the opposite of no is si which means tha twhere I have corregi6 it becomes corrigi6 corrigi6 so thethird person singular of past tense corregir is corrigio(changes e to an i ) . . . ooks like all the es are becoming isin the stems . . .

On the contrary, the think-aloud protocols of Category Bs partici-pants were marked by the absence of any apparent conceptually


20/43

132 Aw areness and Foreign Language B ehavior

driven processing of noticed forms. Here is a typical think-aloudprotocol by one learner in Category B (the clues are edited):(9) . . .number 1,urn, OK horizontal. . .it doesntfit (heh!

heh!), number seven, I will go on, if I can find it, 7 across .. . OK, Ill do number 1I figured it out, um, morio, number7 ella . . .dormo , dormi6 , number 7 done, number 8, oppo-site of n o is si, opposite of no number 10 where is it? si,number 11,um OK ment i r let me find number 11, m e n -tieron, 13 escribir 13, escribio, OK 15 . . . let me find it,corregi6, 19 across dormirse, Ive seen this before so 19 sedormieron, um 20, the form of the verb . . . abrir abri- 20,abrio, 21, form of cubrir el la form would be, um, cubrio? itfits, 23 opposite of no is si, 23 where can I find it? 24, theform of the verb of repetir is repetieron, re-pe-ti-eron. Ver-tical, 1down, the form of the verb ellos, prete rit diuertirse,where is 1down? se divirtieron, the form of unos como enu n l ibro, where is 2 down oh, um (pause) u n (changes o t ou in m u r i d ) ,form of the verb um vestirse number 3 downse uisti6, 4, where is number 4?um t u . . .d u r m i o um t u(changes o t o u) , orm of the verb e l lo sped i r this would be .. .pid ieron , 5 down this would bep id ieron , 9 opposite of nois si where is 9 now? OK, (changes e t o i in mi n t i e r o n ) ,OKits done, 12 down opposite of no is si (changes e t o i incorrigio), 16, 16? OK, des- 61 form, descubrio descubrio, 17e n espaiiol, 17 t u (changes o t o u in d u r mi e r o n ) , 18 form ofthe verb preterit, number 18pre ferir prefiero? prefe- pre -f i r i6 , 19, form of the verb preterit salir, um, salgo? nosalieron, where is 19?sa-lie-ron, 25 t o go e n ir, where is 25?(changes e t o i in repit ieron) , ir it is done. By the way, Ididnt learn a thing.

As can be seen, this learner demonstrated subjective awarenessof all the targeted items in the crossword; she made written andoral corrections and correctly pronounced targeted items. How-ever, she showed no indication of meta-awareness while perform-ing the task; in fact, she appeared bent on finishing the crossword


21/43

Leow 133

puzzle. This relatively low level of awareness, or absence of meta-awareness, may be exemplified by her final statement of notlearning anything from the task. However, her performances onthe recognition and written production tasks were 9 and 7 correctforms, respectively.

In sum, th e findings from th e think-aloud protocols suggestthat different levels of awareness lead t o differences in processing.More specifically, meta-awareness appears to correlate with anincreased usage of conceptually driven processing, such as hy-pothesis testing and morphological rule formation; absence ofmeta-awareness appears to correlate with the absence of suchconceptually driven processing.

Quantitative Ana lysisA pretest comprising a recognition and a written production

assessment task administered before participants exposure to thetargeted forms revealed no difference in ability between partici-pants in the 2 categories A and B (both groups scored a mean of0.00). Consequently, any difference in behavior on th e post-test isprobably due to the level or degree of awareness as revealed in th ethink-aloud protocols. Table 2 and Table 3 provide a summary ofparticipants scores for each targeted form, total individual rawscores, total percentages of accuracy for each targeted form, andgroup mean scores obtained on the recoguition and written pro-duction ta sks (respectively) for Category A and Category B.

To investigate the effect of level of awareness on learnersimmediate behavior or performance on both a recognition andwritten production assessment task, I performed a Wilcoxon ranksums test (the distribution of scores was not normal) on the rawscores obtained on both tasks. The results indicate a significantdifference in performance between Category A participants andCategory B participants on the recognition task (z = -4.61,p = 0.0001).The strength of association (n2= 0.79) indicates th atmore tha n 78% of the variance i n learners ability to recognizeth e targeted forms results from the ir level of awareness while


22/43

Te2

SmmaoPacpsS

Re

oT

C

G

A+c

vc

+maawefmpocrue

HZOA

V

C

m(1)dm7m

(1

ce(1dm1re

2

dv(1)v

3

p(5pee(1

T(+IT

T2)T

T2)T

T2)T

T(T

T+T

T(

T

T*T

T+T

T(2)T

TOTAL

Pcps

1

01

2

0

3

0

4

01

5

01

6

01

7

01

8

01

9

01

1

0

1

01

1

Otl

1

0

1

01

1

01

%ce

1%

01

oc

0

o

01

o-c

01

01

O+l

01

o

0

01

01

01

01

01

0

0

01

O+l

0

01

01

0

Otl

O*l

01

01

01

93%

87%

01

01

0 01

01

0 o+o

01

o 01

01

01

o O+l

01

87%

01

Or1

Or1

0 01

01

01

0 01

01

o+o

01

0 0 0 1%

01

01

0 0 01

01

01

01

O-cl

01

01

O+l

01

0 01

1%

0 0 0 01

01

01

01

0 01

0 01

01

01

01

01

87%

oco

01

O*l

01

0+1

0 o+o

01

01

0 0 01

01

01

00 8

01

0 0 O+l

01

0 0 01

o 01

0 O+l

01

01

0 1%

o+o

o Or1

0 0 0 0 01

0 0 0 o o 01

Okl 8

7%

7 7 9 1 1 9 8 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 9Me=92

KeT=peeT=pe+=+c

+maawe+ue(2)=+c

+maawe-ue

(1=+c

-maawe

-ue


23/43

Te2(cn

SmoPcpsSR

oT

CTGORB+cvc

+maawe2mpocrue

HORZONTAL

VECL

m(1)

dm7m

(11)ce(1dm(1e

2

dv(

v(3)

p(5pee(1

T(T

T2)T

T2)T

T(d

T(t)

T*T

TcT

T*T

T*T

T*T

TOA

Pcps

1

0-1

0-1

0-1

00

0-

0-1

0-

00

0-

0

8

2

01

01

00

00

0-

0-1

0-1

01

0-

0-

8

3

0-

0-1

01

00

01

0-1

01

0-1

0-1

0-1

9

4

0-

0-1

0-1

00

0-1

0-1

0-

01

01

0-

9

5

01

0-1

0-1

00

0-1

0-1

00

01

0-1

01

8

6

01

0-1

00

0-1

0-

0-1

01

0-1

0-1

0-

9

7

0-1

01

0-1

01

0-

0-

01

0-1

0-1

0-1

1

8

0-

0-

0-1

01

0-

0-

01

0-1

01

0-1

10

9

0-

0-1

00

0-1

0-

00

00

00

00

0-1

5

10.

0-

0-1

0-1

00

0-

0-1

0-

00

0-

00

7

11.

01

0-

00

00

00

0-

00

01

00

00

4

1

01

0-

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

00

3

1

0-1

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0-1

2

%ce

100%

93%

58%38%

79%

79%

61.5%

65%

79%

KeT=peeT=pe+=+c

+maawe+ue+=+c

+maawe

-ue

(=+c

-maawe-ue

79%Me=70


24/43

SmoPcpsSWePooT

C

G

A+cvc

+maawe

mpocrue

HZOA

V

C

m(1dn7m

(1

ce(1dm(1re

2

dv

1

v

3

p

(5pee(1

T2)T

T2)T

T2)T

T2)T

T2)T

T2)T

T+T

T+T

T2)T

T2)T

TOTAL

Pcps

1

01

01

01

2

Otl

0

0

3

01

0

oio

4

01

0

01

5

01

ot1

O+l

6

01

01

01

7

01

0+1

o+o

8.

01

0+1

01

9

Or1

01

ot1

1

or1

o+o

01

1

o

0

0

1

0

0

01

1

01

0+1

01

1

O+l

0

0

1

01

01

0

%ce1%

93%

8%

o+o

01

Oa 01

o+o

Or0

o+o

O+l

o+o

01

0 01

0 Or0

Or1

53%

01

01

01

01

01

0 01

01

Or1

o+o

0 01

01

or1

0 93%

oto

01

Oil

O+l

0+1

01

ot1

01

0 01

0 01

01

0 01

93%

01

o+o

01

0 01

01

0 01

Otl

Otl

0 01

01

01

01

87%

o+o

0 0 o+o

01

01

0 01

00

0 01

01

or1

01

00 6%

01

Otl

01

01

01

01

Oel

01

0 01

01

0 00

01

0 93%

o+o

o+o

0 0 0+1

01

0 o+o

01

or1

o 01

01

01

0 8%

6 7 9 9 9 9 6 9 8 7 1 1 8 9 9Me=83

KT=peeT=pe+=+c

+maawe+ue(=+c

+maawe-ue

(1=+c

-maawe

-ue


25/43

Te3(cn

SmoPcpsSWePooT

C

G

B+cvc

+maawefmpocrue

HZOA

V

C

m(1)dm7

m(1

ce(1dm(1re24)

dv(1)

v3

p5pee(1

T(2)T

T(t)T

TT

T+T

T2)T

T2)T

T(

T2)TTk)T

T2)T

TOA

Pcps

1

01

2

00

3

01

4

01

5

01

6

01

7

01

8

01

9

01

1

01

1

01

1

01

1

01

%ce93%

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

00 01

00 0-0

0-0

62%

01

00

01

0-0

01

00

01

00

00

01

00 00 0-0

35%

01

00

01

00

0-0

01

01

01

01

00

00

00

0-0

41%

00

01

00 01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

00

79%

01

0-1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

00

00

86%

0-1 01

01

01

00

01

01

00

00

01

00

00 0

058%

0- 01

01

01

0-1

01

01

0-1

00 01

01

01

0-0

86%

00

00

0-0

01

01

01

01

00

01

01

01

01

01

01

0-1

01

00

00

01

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

58%41%

7 6 9 7 8 9 1 8 4 8 4 3 1

Me=64

KeT=peeT=pe+=+c

+maawe+ue(2)=+c

+maawe

-ue

(=+c

-maawe-ue


26/43


noticing these forms. The results also indicate a significant differ-ence in performance between Category A participants and Cate-gory B participants on the written production task (z = -3.64,p = 0.0002).However, the strength of association (n2 0.49) indi-cates that just under half of the variance in learners ability toproduce the targeted forms results from their level of awarenesswhile noticing these forms. In sum, level of awareness contributesfavorably t o learners ability t o recognize and, to a lesser extent,produce in a written mode, forms noticed during a problem-solvingtask.

I then sub-categorized the da ta into two groups, correct rawscores for horizontal targeted forms ( se mur io , se d urm i6 , m in -tieron, corrigid, se durmieron, and repitieron) and correct rawscores for vertical targeted forms (se vist i6, se diuirtieron, pidie ro n,andpre f i r id ) .Mismatches between the regular and irregular stemvowels found for the horizontal forms were highlighted or madesalient through the use of vertical clues. Vertical targeted forms,on the other hand, did not have this highlighted mismatch, be-cause they already contained the irregular stem vowel providedby clues completed horizontally. To shed more light on the effect oflevel of awareness on learners immediate behavior for the twotypes of targeted forms, I submitted the raw scores obtained onboth tasks t o Wilcoxon rank sums tests. Results indicate a signifi-cant difference in performance between Category A and CategoryB participants for horizontal targeted forms on both the recogni-tion task (z = -6.45, p = 0.0001) and the written production task(z = - 4 . 5 4 , ~ 0.0001). The strengths of association (n2 1.00 andn2= 0.76 respectively) indicate that 100%and more than 76%ofthe variance in learners ability t o recognize and produce respec-tively the noticed horizontal forms results from their level ofawareness while noticing these forms. The results also indicate asignificant difference in performance between Category A andCategory B participants for the vertical targeted forms on bothtasks tz = -4.97, p = 0.0001, and z = -3.87, p = 0.0001, for therecognition and written production tasks respectively). Thestrengths of association (n2= .92 and n2= 0.55)indicate that over


27/43

Leow 139

91%and 55% of the variance in learners ability t o recognize andproduce respectively the vertical targeted forms results from theirlevel of awareness while noticing these forms.

I performed further analyses to address the effect of level ofawareness on type of stem-change, that is, stem vowel e > i andstem vowel o > u. Wilcoxon rank sums tests performed on the rawscores obtained on both tasks for the e > i vowel change indicatea significant difference in performance between Category A andCategory B participants on the recognition task ( z = -4.95, p =0.0001) and written production task (z = -3.45, = 0.0003). hestrengths of association (n2= 0.91 and n2 = 0.44 respectively)indicate that, although more than 90%of the variance in learnersability to recognize the targeted forms with the e > i vowel changeresults from their level of awareness while noticing these forms,only about 44% of the variance results from different levels ofawareness on the written production task.

To compare the 2 categories on their behavior of the stem-change o > u, I conducted t-tests (there was a more normaldistribution of scores) on the raw scores obtained on the two tasks.Results indicate no significant difference in performances betweenCategory A and Category B participants on either task ( t = 1.42,d f = 26,p = ns,and t = 1.78,d f = 26,p = ns, for the recognition andwritten production tasks respectively). In other words, level ofawareness had no significant effect for taking in and producingtargeted forms with the o > u stem change.Because the think-aloud protocols revealed 3 evels of aware-ness whose role might not be obvious in a binary distinctionbetween Category A and Category B-that is k meta-awareness,I individually totaled all noticed forms coded (+ cognitive change,+ meta-awareness, + morphological rule), (+ cognitive change, +meta-awareness,-morphological rule), and (+ cognitive change,-meta-awareness, - morphological rule). Percentages of accuracyfor the three identified levels of awareness on both the recognitionand written production tasks revealed a similar pattern: Moreawareness contributed to more recognition and more accurate


28/43

140 Aw areness and Foreign Language Behavior

written production of the targeted forms. The percentages ofaccuracy based on the three levels of awareness obtained on boththe recognition and written production ta sks appear in Table 4.

I also totaled percentages for type of targeted form (horizon-ta l and vertical) and type of stem-change (e > i and o > u).Similarpatterns, except for the o > u stem change on the written produc-tion task, where th e (+ meta-awareness, - morphological rule)group produced more accurate forms than th e (+ meta-awareness,+ morphological rule) group, occurred: More awareness contrib-uted to more recognition and more accurate wr itt en productionof the targe ted forms. The percentages of accuracy based on thelevels of awareness for type of targe ted form and type of stem-change obtained on the recognition and written production tasksappear in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.Table4Percentages of Accuracy Based on Levels of Awareness

TASKRecognition Production

+ rule- rulemeta-awareness 98%88% 87%82%-meta-awareness 73% 66%

Table 5Percentages of Accuracy Based on Levels of Awareness by Type ofTargeted Form


Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical+ rule 97% 100% 86% 88%- ule 92% 81% 84% 77%+ meta-awareness-meta-awareness 73% 73% 69% 64%


29/43

Leow 141

Table 6Percentages of Accura cy Base d on th e Levels of Awareness for Typeof Stem-Change (e > i and o > u)


o > u e > i o > u e > i+ rule 100% 97% 93% 86%

72%meta-awareness - ule 96% 83% 96%-meta-awareness 90% 66% 80% 61%Discussion

The findings suggest at least 3 levels of awareness that onecan identify and measure when L2 learners noticea morphologicalform while completing a problem-solving task. The qualitativeanalysis of the think-aloud protocols reveals that meta-awarenessappears t o correlate with the use of conceptually driven process-ing, such as hypothesis testing and morphological rule formation.On the contrary, absence of meta-awareness reveals an absence ofsuch conceptually driven processing while noticing L2 data. Thesefindings provide partial evidence of different types of processinglearners use while noticing a linguistic form in L2 data, as Robin-sons (1995a) model of the relationship between the nature ofattention and memory claimed. However, Robinson proposed thatdifferences in processing (e.g., conceptually driven processing vs.data-driven processing) may be triggered by type of task. Becauselearners demonstrated differences in processing even though theywere performing the same task, the present findings indicate tha t,in addition t o type of task driving a specific type of processing,learners individual choice might also do SO.^

The findings also indicate that level of awareness, as de-fined here, appears t o contribute significantly t o what L2 learn-er s take in as potential data for further processing. Learners who


30/43


demonstrated higher levels of awareness performed significantlybetter than learners who did not, especially on the recognitiontask, with over 78% of the variance attributable to the level ofawareness while noticing the targeted forms. Further analyses ofthe data t o address the effect of level of awareness on the type oftargeted form (horizontal and vertical) also revealed superiorperformances by learners who demonstrated higher levels ofawareness. However, level of awareness had no significant effecton learners ability t o recognize and produce targeted forms withthe stem-change o > u. One explanation: the form murib, recog-nized and produced by most of the learners, was present in boththe textbook and episodes of Destinos, a Spanish soap operastudents were required t o watch during the semester, Anotherexplanation may be the narrow variance between only 3 items(murio , durmi6 , and durmieron) .

That more awareness contributes t o more recognition andmore accurate written production of targeted morphological formscan also be seen in the downward trend in accuracy, ranging from98% recognition and 87% written production for learners whoprovided a metalinguistic description of the underlying morpho-logical rule t o 73% recognition and 66% written production forlearners who did not demonstrate any meta-awareness of thetargeted forms irregularity (cf. Table 4).This trend also appearsin the analyses of learners accuracy of the targeted forms basedon type of form (horizontal and vertical) and type of stem-change(cf. Table 5 and Table 6).

Indeed, awareness at the level of understanding (Schmidt,1995,p. 29) apparently helped direct learners attention substan-tially more t o the irregularities of other forms in the crosswordwhose potential noticing was not clearly highlighted, namely, thevertical clues. Table 5 reveals that only the forms coded (+ meta-awareness, + morphological rule) maintained a high level of accu-racy on both tasks for the vertical forms (100%for the recognitiontask and 88%on the written production task).These performancesare even more remarkable when compared t o the accuracy levelsof the other two coded forms, 81% and 77% (+ meta-awareness,-


31/43

Leow 143

morphological rule) and 73% and 64% (- meta-awareness) for therecognition and written production tasks respectivelyThese findings provide empirical evidence for the facilitativerole of awareness espoused by both Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1994,1995) and Robinson (1995a), who have argued that consciousattention or awareness plays a crucial part in L2 behavior ordevelopment. The results also strongly illuminate the facilitativerole level of awareness may play in subsequent further processingof forms noticed while interacting with L2 data. However, due t othe nature of the experimental exposure task, the issue of whetherawareness is essential for subsequent processing to take placeremains unsolved. Future studies will need to investigate thisaspect of language learning by finding ways to operationalize andmeasure the complete absence of awareness in SLA.

This study does have some limitations. First, only a morpho-logical level of forms was addressed in Spanish. I cannot thereforeextrapolate the findings to other levels of structures or t o dis-course. Second, the number of participants was relatively small(28) and the duration of exposure ( that is, completing the cross-word puzzle) was approximately 10 minutes o r less. Third, there isclearly a need to address the role and effects of awareness on morespontaneous tasks and other language levels. Future research mayalso need t o replicate this study but include think-aloud protocolsproduced while performing the post-exposure tasks, in order t ogain insights into the type of processing learners employ as aresult of exposure.8 In addition, further research still needs t oaddress possible dissociations between awareness (even at thelevel of noticing) and learners L2 behavior.


32/43

Awareness and Foreign Language Behavior

SummaryThe findings suggest the following conclusions:1. Different levels of awareness lead to differences in process-ing. More specifically, meta-awareness appears t o correlatewith an increased usage of conceptually driven processingsuch as hypothesis testing and morphological rule formationwhile absence of meta-awareness appears t o correlate with anabsence of such processing.2. More awareness contributes t o more recognition and accu-rate written production of noticed forms by enhancing furtherprocessing of these forms in the L2 data. This increasedallocation of attention appears t o permit learners to take inand retrieve the grammatical information immediately in amore efficient manner when compared t o less awareness atthis level.3. The findings of this study provide empirical support for thefacilitative effects of awareness in foreign language behavior(cf. Robinson, 1995a; Schmidt, 1990,1993,1994, 1995).

The study attempted t o address the 2 methodological prob-lems found in current investigations of the role of awareness in L2behavior: namely, defining precisely what constitutes awarenessand operationalizing and measuring different levels of awarenessin relation t o Schmidts (1990, etc.) noticing hypothesis. It carefullyattempted to ensure that noticing was indeed established beforeaddressing the role of levels of awareness and their effects on L2behavior. Defining and operationalizing awareness in SLA willremain controversial, but the findings here shed a little more lighton the noticing hypothesis, specifically on the facilitative role ofawareness and its effect on L2 behavior.


33/43

Leow

Notes

145

A report of a study that found evidence for Tomlin and Villas (1994)fine-grained analysis of attention in SLA can be found in Leow (1998a).Cf. Schmidt (1995, pp. 20-23) for a more detailed discussion and critique ofthese studies.3Several researchers have strongly proposed the use of verbal reports asa valuable and thoroughly reliable source of information about cognitiveprocesses in L2 research (e.g., Ericsson & Simon, 1980, 1993). Cohen(1987) also described verbal reports as providing important insights forenhancing learners attention to language input (cf. Ericsson & Simon, 1993,and Faerch & Kasper, 1987,for further discussion on the use of introspectionin L2 research). Other researchers have critiqued the use of verbal reports(e.g., Brody, 1989; Perruchet & Amorim, 1992; Shanks & St. John, 1994),arguing th at they are insensitive measures of awareness. However, thesecritiques were framed in the context of objecting to procedures th at requestedparticipants to provide verbal reports after exposure to L2 data (e.g., Reber,1969, etc.; Reber e t al., 1985).4Participants were drawn from 2 studies (Leow, 1998a, 1998b) hat addressedTomlin and Villas (1994)fine-grained analysis of attention and the effects ofamount (single vs. multiple) and type (learner-centered vs. teacher-centered)of exposure on L2 development respectively. They shared the same academiccharacteristics and performed the same experimental exposure task and pre-and immediate post-exposure assessment tasks. I administered the question-naire in these 2 studies 2 months and 3.5months after the experimental task,respectively.Spanish does not have many high-frequency words that end with a n i. Outof the two possibilities mi myand si yes,I selected si as the clue, due tothe potential interference betweenmi andme (to)methat earners typicallymake a t this beginning level. Entering me instead of mi on the crosswordwould not trigger the vowel change in irregular preterit forms th at alreadyhave an e in the stem. In addition, I did not deem the accent on si to beproblematic because I informed the students that accents did not count inthis crossword.6The teacher wrote on the blackboard the verbal paradigm of the regularpreterit -irverbs in Spanish, provided examples, and answered questions. Inaccordance with the methodology of the course, the presentation was inSpanish and the teacher did not discourage questions asked in English.7Thesefindings are not surprising when one considers the several studies inreading (essentially what this task entailed) that indicate that learners useindividual processes/strategies while interacting with the same text (cf.Oxford & Ehrmans, 1992, review of such studies).sJourdenais, Ota, Stauffer, Boyson, and Doughty (1995) attempted to addressthese processesat a post-exposure stage, although they did not establish therole attention played during learners exposure to the L2 data.


34/43

146 Aw areness an d Foreign Langu age B ehavior

ReferencesAlanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second

language acquisition. In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.),Attention and awareness inforeign langua ge learn ing (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i.

Allport,A. (1988).What concept of consciousness? n A.J.Marcel & E. Bisiach(Eds.), Consciousness in contemporary science (pp. 159-182). London:Clarendon Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second languageacquisition. Langu age Learning, 37,385407.

Best, J.B. (1992).Cognitivepsychology.New York: West Publishing.Bransdorfer, R. L. (1992).Com mun icative value and linguistic knowledge insecond langu age inputprocessing . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Brody,N. (1989).Unconscious learning of rules: Comment on Reber's analysisof implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118,

Can; T. H., & Curran,T. (1994).Cognitive factors in learning about structuredsequences: Applications t o syntax. Studies in Second La nguag e Acquisi-tion, 16,205-230.Carrell, P. L. (1992).Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall.LanguageLearning, 42,l-20.

Cohen, A. D. (1987). Using verbal reports in research on language learning.In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Ed s.),fntro spec tion n second languag e research(pp. 82-95). Clevedon, U K Multilingual Matters.

Cowan,N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective atten-tion, and their mutual constraints within the human information process-ing system. Psychological Bulletin, 104,163-191.

Curran, T., & Keele, S. W (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms ofsequence learning. Journal of Experim ental Psychology: Learning, Me m-ory, an d Cognition, 19, 189-202.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference.Studies in Second La nguage Acquisit ion, 13,431-469.

Dulaney, D. E., Carlson, R. A., & Dewey, G. I. (1984).A case of syntacticallearning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General, 114,25-32.

Ericsson,K., & Simon,H.(1980).Verbal reports as data.Psychological Review ,Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993).Protocol an alysis: Verbal reports a s d at a

236-238.

87,215-251.(2nd ed.). Boston: MIT Press.


35/43

Leow 147

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1987). Introspection in second languag eresearch. Clevedon, U K Multilingual Matters.

Hardcastle, V. G. (1993).The naturalists versus the skeptics: The debate overa scientific understanding of consciousness.Journal of Mind and Behavior,

Hartman, M., Knopman,D. S.,& Nissen, M.J.(1989).Implicit learning of newverbal associations. Jou rnal of Exp erim enta l Psychology: Learning , M em -ory, an d Cognition, 15, 1070-1082.

Joordens,S.,& Merikle, P.M. (1992).False recognition and perception withoutawareness. Memory and Cogni tion,20,151-159.

Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S.,Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995).Doestextual enhancement promote noticing? A think aloud protocol analysis.In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign languagelearning (Technical Report No. 9, pp. 183-216). Honolulu, HI: Universityof Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Leow, R. P. (1993).To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies inSecond Langu age Acquisition, 15,333-355.

Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition.Studies in Second Langu age Acquisit ion, 17,79-89.

Leow, R. P. (1998a). Toward operationalizing the process of attention insecond language acquisition: Evidence for Tomlin and Villas (1994)fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psychol inguis t ics , 19,

Leow, R. P. (1998b). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adultlearnersL2 development in SLA.Modern Language Journal , 82,49-68.

Leow, R. P. (1999a).The role of attention in secondforeign language classroomresearch: Methodological issues. In F. Martinez-Gil & J.Gutierrez-Rexach(Eds.), Advances in Hispanic l inguistics: Papers from the 2nd HispanicLinguis tics Sympo sium (pp. 60-71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Leow, R. P. (1999b). Attention, awareness, and focus on for m research: Acritical overview. In J. F. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Meaning and form:Mu ltiple perspectives (pp. 69-98). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign languagebehavior: Aware vs. unaware learners. S tud ie s i n Second LanguageAcquis i t ion.

Mangubhai, F. (1991). The processing behaviors of adult second languagelearners and their relationship to second language proficiency. AppliedLinguistics, 12,268-298.Marcel, A. J. (1983).Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments onvisual masking and word recognition. Co gnitive Psychology, 15,197-237.

McLaughlin, B. (1990).Consciousvs. unconscious learning.TESOLQuar-terly, 24,617-634.

14,27-50.

133-159.


36/43

148 Awareness and Foreign Langu age Behavior

Nissen, M., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning:Evidence from performance measures. Co gnitive Psychology, 19,l-32.

Oxford, R., & Ehrman, M. (1992). Second language research on individualdifferences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188-205.

Perruchet, P., & Amorim, M.-A.(1992). Conscious knowledge and changes inperformance in sequence learning: Evidence agains t dissociation. Journalof Experim ental Psychology: Learning , Memory, and Cogni t ion, 18,

Pica,T. 1991). Do second language learners need negotiation? Penn WorkingPapers in E ducational Linguistics, 7,1-35.

Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native speakernegotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? InC. Kramsch & S. McConnel-Givet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-discipl inary perspect ives on language s tudy (pp. 198-237). Lexington,MA: D. C. Heath.

Reber, A. S.(1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Jou rnal of VerbalLea rning an d Verbal Behavior; 77,317-327.

Reber, A. S. (1969).Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages.Journal of Exp erim enta l Psychology, 81, 115-119.

Reber, A. S. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role ofinstructional set. Journal of Experim ental Psychology: H u m a n Learningan d Memory, 2,88-94.

Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experi-me ntal P sychology: General, 118,219-235.

Reber, A. S. (1992). The cognitive unconscious: An evolutionary perspective.Consciousness and Cogn ition, 1,93-133.

Reber, A. S.,Allen, R., & Regan, S.(1985). Syntactical learning and judgment,still unconscious and stil l abstract: Comment on Dulaney, Carlson, andDewey. Journal of Exp erim enta l Psychology: General, 114, 17-24.Robinson, P. (1995a).Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Lan-guage Learning, 45,283-331.

Robinson, P. (199513).Aptitude, awareness, and the fundamental similarity ofimplicit and explicit second language learning. In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.),Attention a nd awareness in foreign language learning (Technical ReportNo. 9, pp. 303-357). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second LanguageTeaching & Curriculum Center.

Rosa, E.,& ONeill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness:Another piece to the puzzle. Stud ies i n Second Language Acqu isit ion, 21,

Schacter, D. L. (1992). Consciousness and awareness in memory and amnesia:Critical issues. In A. D. Milner & M. D. Rugg (Eds.), Foundations ofneuropsychology series (pp. 180-200). New York: Academic Press.

785-800.

511-556.


37/43

Leow 149

Schmidt, H. W., & Frota, S.N. (1986).Developing basic conversational abilityin a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. InR. Day (Ed.),Talking to learn: Conversation i n second language acquisit ion(pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990).The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition.Annua lReview of Applied Linguistics, 13,206-226.

Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of usefuldefinitions for applied linguistics. In J.H. Hulstijn & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.),Consciousness and second language learning: Conceptual, methodologicaland practical issues in language learning and teaching [Special issue],AILA Review, 11,11-26.

Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: Atutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. InR. W. Schmidt (Ed.),Attention and aw areness in oreign language learning(Technical Report No. 9, pp. 1-63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i,Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Seliger, H. W. (1983). The language learner as a linguist: Of metaphors andrealities.Applied Linguistics, 4 , 179-191.Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable humanlearning systems. Behavioral an d Br ain Sciences, 17,367-447.

Shook, D. J. (1994).FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon.Applied La nguag e Learning, 5,57-93.

Shrif in, R. M. (1993). Short-term memory: A brief commentary. Memory &Cognition,21,193-197.

Slimani, A. (1987).Th e teaching-learning rezationship: Learnin g opp ortuni-ties an d learning outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, LancasterUniversity, Lancaster, UK.Slimani, A. (1992). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In J. C. Alderson &A. Beretta (Eds.),Eva luatin g second language education (pp. 197-220).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sorace,A. 1991,March).Incomplete us . divergent representations of unaccu-sativity in non-nativegra mm ars of I talian. Paper presented a t the SecondLanguage Research Forum, Los Angeles.

Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and secondlanguage acquisition. Stu die s i n Second Languag e Acquis it ion , 16,

VanPatten, B. (1990).Attending to form and content in the input:An experi-ment in consciousness. Stud ies in Second L anguag e Acquisition, 12,183-203.

287-301.


38/43

150 Aw areness an d Foreign Langu age Beha vior

Velmans, M. (1991). Is human information processing conscious? Behavioralan d Br ai n Sciences, 14,651-669.

White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Someeffects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Lan-guage Research, 7 ,133-161.

White,L., Spada,N. M., Lightbown, P.M., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhance-ment and second language question formation. Applied Linguistics, 4,416432 .

Wickens, C . D. (1989). Attention and skilled performance. I n D. H. Holding(Ed.),H u m a n skills (pp. 71-105). New York John Wiley.

Appendix AQuestionnaireYou have participated during this semester in a n empirical st udyof the irregular third person singular an d plural preter it formsof -ir verbs in Spanish. More specifically, the forms were thefollowing:

mintio mintieron pidi6 pidieronprefirio prefirieron corrigid corrigieronse vistid se vistieron repitid repitieronse durmio se durmieron se divirti6 se divirtieronse murio se murieron

Please indicate your knowledge/recognition of these forms beforeparticipating in this study by circling the appropriate answerbelow:

a) Yes, I knewhecognized these forms (3 or more out of 9)before doing the experiment.b) No, I did not knowfrecognize these forms (2 o r less outof 9) before doing the experiment.

If your answer is (b), please indicate whether you were ex-posed-outside of this experiment-to these forms during thesemester by circling th e appropriate answer below:


39/43

Leow 151

a) Yes, I was exposed t o most of these forms during thesemester.b) No, I was not exposed t o most of these forms during thesemester.

If your answer is (a), was th e exposure througha) your instructor?b) your textbook?c> yourself he., you checked the forms by yourself)?

Finally, your participation is highly appreciated. Thankyou and good luckwith your exams.


40/43


Appendix BCrossword Puzzle

IT m~ S I E I D I I R I M ~ I

(ellos)del preterito del verbo repetir. Porejemplo, Anoche,10sestudiantes (repeated)-hacia el lado)1. La forma de la tercera persona singular(el) del preterito del verbo morirse. Poreiemulo. En 1950, mi padre (died) -en ungccidente.7. La forma de la tercera persona singular(ella) del preterito def verbo dorrnirse. Porejemplo, A yer por la noche, mi novia (fellasleep) -en el sofa.8. El contrario (opposite) de enespafiol.10.E1 ontrario (opposite) de enespafiol.11.La forma de la tercera persona plural(ellos) del preterito del verbo rnentir. Porejemplo, La madre grit6 porque (they lied)-uchas veces.13.La forma de la tercera persona singular(ella) el preterito del verbo escribir.Porejemplo, Ayer, mi madre (wrote)- rescartas.15.La forma de la tercera persona singular(ella) el pret del verbo corregir.Por ejemplo,Ayer, mi profesora (corrected)- odos 10sdeberes.19.La forma de la tercera persona singular(ellos.) del preterito del verbodormirse. Porejemplo, Ayer por la tarde, Maria y Juan (fellasleep)- n la clase de geografia.20.La forma de la tercera persona singularWd. 7 del preterito del verbo abrir. Porejemplo, Ayer, Ud. (opened)- 2 botellas decervezas.21.La forma de la tercera persona singular(ella)del preteri to del verbo cubrir. Parejemplo, Ella (covered)- a mesa conmuchos papeles.23.E1contrario loppositel de enespaiiol.24.La forma dc la tercera persona plural

- las lecciones.(hacia abajo)1. La forma de la tercera persona plural(ellos) dei preterito del verbo diuertirse.Porejemplo, Anoche,10schicos (enjoyedthemselves)- ucbo en la fiesta.2. La forma singular de como en _libro.3. La forma de la tercera persona singular(ella)del preterit0 del verbo uestirse. Porejemplo, Anoche, ella (go t dressed) -en 5minutos.4. Un adjetivo posesivo (segunda personasingular) en espaiiol.5. La forma de la tercera persona plural(ellos)del preterito del verbopedir. Parejemplo, Ayer, nuestros amigosnos (asked for)- iaz dolares.9. El contrario (opposite) de enespafiol.12.E1contrario (opposite) de enespaiiol.16.La forma de la tercera persona singular (el)dcl preterito del verbodescubrir. Por ejemplo,La semana pasada, Miguel (discovered)-00 dolares en la calle.17.Un adjetivo posesivo (segunda personasingular) en espariol.18.La forma de la tercera persona singular(ella) del preterito del verbopreferir. Porejemplo, El semestre pasado, elle (preferred)- studiar espaiiol.19.La forma de la tercera persona plural(ellos)del preterito del verbo salir. Porejemplo, La semana pasada, elios (left)-ara Barcelona.25.E1 verbo para en espanol.


41/43

Leow 153

Appendix CRecognition TaskTASK _. or each of the following, circle the letter which, in youropinion, grammatically completes the following sentences. ALLTHE VERBS ARE IN THE PRETERIT.1. Anoche, 10sestudiantes (repetidto repeat)

A. repitieron las lecciones.C. repetieron las lecciones.

2. Ayer, mi madre (escribir/to write)A. escribi tr es cartas.C. escribe tres cartas.

3. Ayer por la tarde, Maria y J uan (dormirse/to fall asleep)A. se dormieron en la clase.C. se durmeron en la clase.

4. La semana pasada, Miguel (descubrir/to discover)A. descubr6 10 d6lares en lacalle. calle.

C. descubrio 10 dolares enla calle. la calle.

5 . El semestre pasado, ella (preferidto prefer)A. preferi6 estudiar espafiol.C. prefird estudiar espafiol.

6. Ayer por la noche, mi novia (dormirse/to fall asleep)A. se durmo en el sofa.C. se durmi6 en el sofa.

7. La madre grit6 porque ellos (mentirho lie)A. mentiron muchas veces.C. mintieron muchas veces.

8. Ayer, nuestros amigos nos (pedir/to ask for)A. pidieron diez d6lares.C. pedieron diez dblares.

B. repetaron las lecciones.D. repitaron las lecciones.B. escrib6 tres cartas.D. escribi6 tres cartas.B. se dormeron en la clase.D. se durmieron en la clase.B. descubri 10 d6lares en laD. descubre 10 d6lares en

B. prefirid estudiar espafiol.D. prefer6 estudiar espafiol.B. se dormio en el sofa.D. se dorm6 en el sofa.B. mentieron muchas veces.D. mintiron muchas veces.B. pederon diez d6lares.D. pideron diez dolares.


42/43

154 Aw areness an d Foreign Lang uage Behavior

9. Ella (cubrirho cover)A. cubri la mesa con papeles. B. cubro la mesa con papeles.C. cubrio la mesa con papeles. D. cubre la mesa con papeles.A. saliron para Barcelona.C. salaron para Barcelona.

11.Anoche, ella (vestirseho dress)A. se vestid en 5 minutos.C. se vest6 en 5 minutos.

12. Ayer, usted (abrir/to open)A. abre 12 botellas deC. abri6 12 botellas de

10. La semana pasada, ellos (salirho leave)B. salieron para Barcelona.D. saleron para Barcelona.B. se visto en 5 minutos.D. se visti6 en 5 minutos.B. abro 12 botellas deD. abri 12 botellas de

cervezas. cervezas.cervezas. cervezas.

13. En 1950,mi padre (morirse/to die)A. se morid en un accidente.C. se murio en un accidente.A. se divirtieron mucho en laC. se divertaron mucho en la

B. se mur6 en un accidente.D. se mor6 en un accidente.B. se divertieron mucho en laD. se divirtaron mucho en la

14. Anoche, 10schicos (divertirseho enjoy oneself)fiesta. fiesta.fiesta. fiesta.

15. Ayer, mi profesora (corregirlto correct)A. corregi6 todos 10s deberes.C. correg6 todos 10s deberes.

B. corrigio todos 10s deberes.D. corrig6 todos 10s deberes.


43/43

Leow 155

Appendix DW ritten Production Task

TASK_. ill in the blanks with th e appropriate form of theverb in parentheses. USE THE PRETERIT TENSE FOR ALLTHE VERBS.1. LQuien (wrote/escribir) don Quijote de laMancha?2. iFue increible! iEllos (slept/dormir) dos dias!ejercicios por 2 horas.4. Ayer, 10s niiios (coveredcubrir) la mesa conun periodico.5. LPuedes imaginarlo? iAyer, mis amigos (liedlmentir)

6. Ayer, el niiio (got dressedvestirse) sin laayuda de su madre.7 . La semana pasada, 10s chicos (leftkalir) deGeorgetown.8. Ayer, Maria (correctedcorregir) todas suscomposiciones.error.10. El semestre pasado, Juan y Maria (preferredlpreferir)

trabajar.11. En 1954, mi padre (diedmorir)accidente.12. iQuien (openedabrir)13. El aiio pasado, mis padres (enjoyed themselves/divertirse) mucho en Madrid.14. Anoche, 10s amigos (fell asleep/dormirse)el baiio.15. En 1994,Fernando nunca me (askedpedir)

3. Ayer, Hector (repeatedrepetir) sus

dos veces!

9. Anoche, mi padre (discovereddescubrir) su

en unesta puerta anoche?

en

Attention, Awareness, And FL Behaviour

Documents

Transcript of Attention, Awareness, And FL Behaviour