that an instructor could come up with some type of input enhancement format(s) that they use each time for specific tasks with their students. Each enhancement format corresponds with a code by having a meaning assigned to it. The learners are explicitly informed as to what each code means. Over time, because the code keeps appearing in coursework, the meaning of the codes becomes automatized and the learner has more attentional resources to devote to other information processing that involves comprehension, for example. Future Research on Input Enhancement Han et al. (2008) mentioned that preliminary evidence from Overstreet (1998), substantiated recently by Lee (2007), and suggested that input enhancement may detract from learners’ attention to meaning. This should, accordingly, raise a red flag for future TE researchers (p.603). Similarly, Lee and Huang (2008) said that although the reported effects of VIE on learners’ meaning processing were not statistically significant in most of the studies, both Lee (2007) and Overstreet (1998) reported that VIE might have observable debilitating effects on the processing of meaning comprehension (p.317) Although both of the overview articles were written in 2008, recently, in 2012, Brantmeier et al. (2012) supported the claim that input enhancement could potentially disrupt comprehension by showing no effect and a negative affect among two enhancement variables. A future study could focus on morphosyntactic instructional and testing measures that are form focused instead of meaning and comprehension focused because there seems to be a negative effect of input enhancement on comprehension. There could also be future research studies that test whether or not input enhancement does indeed effect the processing of meaning and comprehension. In line with the previous research suggestion, the DeSantis (2008) and the Simard (2009) looked at morphemes and the results of the studies produced a significant effect. There are not
that an instructor could come up with some type of input enhancement format(s) that they use each time for specific tasks with their students. Each enhancement format corresponds with a code by having a meaning assigned to it. The learners are explicitly informed as to what each code means. Over time, because the code keeps appearing in coursework, the meaning of the codes becomes automatized and the learner has more attentional resources to devote to other information processing that involves comprehension, for example. Future Research on Input Enhancement Han et al. (2008) mentioned that preliminary evidence from Overstreet (1998), substantiated recently by Lee (2007), and suggested that input enhancement may detract from learners’ attention to meaning. This should, accordingly, raise a red flag for future TE researchers (p.603). Similarly, Lee and Huang (2008) said that although the reported effects of VIE on learners’ meaning processing were not statistically significant in most of the studies, both Lee (2007) and Overstreet (1998) reported that VIE might have observable debilitating effects on the processing of meaning comprehension (p.317) Although both of the overview articles were written in 2008, recently, in 2012, Brantmeier et al. (2012) supported the claim that input enhancement could potentially disrupt comprehension by showing no effect and a negative affect among two enhancement variables. A future study could focus on morphosyntactic instructional and testing measures that are form focused instead of meaning and comprehension focused because there seems to be a negative effect of input enhancement on comprehension. There could also be future research studies that test whether or not input enhancement does indeed effect the processing of meaning and comprehension. In line with the previous research suggestion, the DeSantis (2008) and the Simard (2009) looked at morphemes and the results of the studies produced a significant effect. There are not
troie_spring_2015.docx