Attention, Awareness, and FL Behaviour

Attention, Awareness, and
Foreign Language Behavior
Ronald I? Leow
Georgetown University
The 1990s have witnessed a substantial increase of

empirical studies in the secondforeign language (L2)class-
room setting that have in some way addressed L2 learning
under a so-called form-focused perspective. A review of
many of these studies reveals that attempts are usually
made through some kind of instructional treatment or
exposure designed t o draw learners' attention t o and
subsequent noticing of targeted linguistic forms in the
L2 data or input. Strands of research include input
flooding, input enhancement, implicit/explicit learning
conditions, processing instruction, explicit/implicit feed-
back, and classroom-based tasks. The theoretical premise
underlying these studies is that some form of attention
(and awareness) to linguistic data is crucial for L2 learning
to take place, a premise not addressed methodologically in
many of the studies (cf Leow, 1999a, for a methodological
review of studies conducted under an attentional frame-
work in the 1990s). My study in this volume is part of a
series of empirical investigations (cf. Leow, 1998a, 1998b,
2000; Rosa & ONeill, 1999) that have sought to first
establish methodologically that attention was indeed paid
to targeted forms in the input before the effects of such
attention, and consequently awareness, could be statisti-
cally analyzed.
Department of Spanish and Portuguese.

Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to the author,
Department of Spanish & Portuguese, ICC 403,37th & 0 Sts.,NW, Washing-
ton, DC 20057, Internet: RLEOW@guvax.georgetown.edu
113
114 Awareness and Foreign Language Behavior
To operationalize the process of attention in SLA, I

(1998a)tested and found empirical support, at the morpho-
logical level, for the fine-grained analysis of attention
postulated by Tomlin and Villa (1994). To control for the
potential variable of prior knowledge, only adult learners
of Spanish with relatively no prior knowledge of the tar-
geted forms in the input were included in the participant
pool. To address the issue of internal validity, think-aloud
protocols were used to gather online data while learners
were completing a specially designed problem-solvingtask
(three versions of a crossword puzzle). The role of aware-
ness, not addressed in this 1998a study, was pursued in the
present study below in relation to Schmidt’s (1990, 1993,
1995) noticing hypothesis in SLA. The data used for this
study came from my other two studies (1998a, 1998b) that
employed similar research designs using online data elici-
tation procedures. Statistical analyses of the think-aloud
protocols revealed that higher levels of awareness ap-
peared to correlate with an increased usage of hypothesis
testing and morphological rule formation and that more
awareness contributed to more recognition and written
production of the noticed forms. These findings were both
replicated by Rosa and O’Neill (19991, who extended my
line of investigation by exploring the role of awareness at
the syntactic level in the context of a problem-solving task.
One debatable topic in SLA research is whether the role
awareness plays is crucial for subsequent processing of L2
data to which learners are exposed. To address this thorny
question, I (2000)replicated the present study below with
several methodological features added to the research de-
sign of the original study. I found that learners who dem-
onstrated awareness of the targeted morphological forms
during the experimental exposure appeared to have taken
in and produced in writing significantly more of these
forms compared with learners who demonstrated a lack of
such awareness. In addition, aware learners significantly
increased their ability to recognize and produce in writing
the targeted morphological forms after exposure, whereas
the unaware learners failed to do so. One interesting
methodological feature of this study was the use of
multiple data-elicitation measures (both online and off-
line) of learners’ internal processes. Online measures were
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, a
recognition and written production task, and a follow-up
interview with the unaware participants, In addition, fol-
lowing my previous studies, I used both quantitative and
qualitative analyses to probe more deeply into the data.
From a theoretical perspective, the findings of studies
that have employed online data elicitation measures or
procedures to gather information on the attention learners
actually pay to targeted forms or structures in the input
and their level of awareness of such data have indicated
an important role for both attention and awareness in
subsequent processing of L2 data. From a methodological
perspective, the use of think-aloud protocols has been
critiqued anecdotally (e.g., Seliger, 1983). One potential
limitation (not empirically supported) is its potential intro-
duction of an additional task during the processing of L2
data. However, the use of online data collection procedures
is clearly higher in internal validity, one of the major
limitations of many current attentional studies in SLA
They provide relatively more substantial evidence of what
is being measured when compared to offline measures. In
addition, online data can be subjected to qualitative analy-
ses that provide a richer source of information on learners’
attention and awareness, a luxury not afforded by offline
measures. Indeed, while online data have provided more
insights into learners’ internal processes, the use of online
measures has also revealed a disturbing finding, namely,
how representative are the participants in the different
experimental 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 in
terms ofprocessing the L2 data. Other studies (e.g., Alanen,
1995; Leow, this volume, 1998a, 1998b; Rosa & O”eil1,
1999) have all found similar results revealing that some
participants in one group were performing similarly to
those in other groups.
The roles of attention and awareness, without doubt,
are areas of research that warrant further research in
SLA. The current challenge to researchers is to test
further the theoretical approaches to the roles of attention
and awareness in SLA and improve the operationalization

of both attention and what constitutes awareness in L2
learning in studies conducted under an attentional frame-
work in the classroom setting (Leow, 199913).In addition,
the use of multiple data elicitation procedures (both online
and 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) or second language
(L2) has been particularly controversial in the fields of cognitive
psychology, cognitive science, and second language acquisition
(SLA). On the one hand, authors have suggested avoiding the
umbrella 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 conscious
attention may not be as crucial as the attentional function of
detection, which can even be dissociated from awareness. On the
other hand, though acknowledging the terminological confusion
created by the conflation of distinct senses of consciousness in
current research, Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1994, 1995) still opted t o
address the notion of consciousness in the area of attention and
language learning. According to Schmidt’s “noticing hypothesis,”
consciousness, in the sense of awareness of specific forms in the
input at the level of noticing (conscious attention), is necessary for
language learning t o take place. This study reports the findings of
a qualitative and quantitative study to address awareness’s role
in the human attentional system and its effects on L2 behavior. To
this end, I analyzed both the think-aloud protocols produced by
adult L2 learners of Spanish completing a problem-solving task
and their immediate performances on 2 post-exposure assessment
tasks, a recognition and written production task.
Leow 117
Theoretical Background
Several researchers have preferred t o omit any role of con-

sciousness in language learning and have argued for a dissociation
between 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-attentive
processing. However, in some cases focal-attentive processes may
operate effectively without consciousness being present. Tomlin
and Villa (1994) viewed the process of attention as being too
coarse-grained in SLA studies, like, for example, the metaphor of
limited cognitive capacity. They proposed that conscious aware-
ness (noticing), as presented in SLA research, may not play such
a crucial role as other attentional functions dissociated from it.
According to Tomlin and Villa, SLA research also needs to address
a fine-grained analysis of attention that incorporates the following
3 attentional functions: alertness (overall readiness to deal with
incoming stimuli or data), orientation (direction of attentional
resources t o a certain type of stimuli), and detection (cognitive
registration of the stimuli).l Though none of these attentional
functions requires awareness either to operate or as the result of
processing, detection is the one closest t o awareness. Detection is
crucial for further processing t o take place and “it is ultimately on
this level that acquisition must operate” (Tomlin 8z Villa, 1994,
p. 193).
Studies cited t o lend empirical support for the dissociation
between attention and awareness at the level of detection in
language learning include studies that have used semantic prim-
ing tasks (e.g,, Marcel, 1983), or a serial reaction time task to
address learning sequences of input (e.g., Curran & Keele, 1993;
Nissen & Bullemer, 1987). However, these studies have certain
limitations. As Schmidt (1995)pointed out, several methodological
problems plagued both studies with the categorization of partici-
pants’ levels of awareness and the potential for other interpreta-
tions of the findings.2In addition, operationalizing and measuring
the dissociation between attention and awareness at the level of

detection remains a problematic and thorny issue.
On the other hand, the “noticing hypothesis” (Schmidt, 1990,
1993, 1994, 1995) has acknowledged the role of consciousness in
language learning and argued that learners must first consciously
“notice”-that is, demonstrate a conscious apprehension and
awareness of some particular form in the input-before any sub-
sequent processing of that 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, learners
select specific parts of the input they are exposed t o which then
become available for further processing. Indeed, Schmidt (1990, p.
139) argued strongly against any intake of input that the learner
has not noticed. He appears to equate noticing with attention plus
awareness (1990, p. 132; 1993, pp. 209-212). He operationalized
noticing as a cognitive operation that takes place both during and
immediately after exposure t o the input that is available for
self-report (1990, p. 132).
To support his argument for the role of consciousness in the
sense of awareness at the level of noticing in SLA, Schmidt cited
primarily a diary study of his own personal attempts to learn
Portuguese (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) and SLA studies that have
addressed (a) enhanced input designed to draw learners’ attention
to specific forms in the input (e.g., Doughty, 1991; White, 1991;
White, Spada, Lightbown & Ranta, 1991); (b) discourse studies
demonstrating limited occurrences of acquisition-enhancing ne-
gotiation sequences (e.g., Pica, 1991, 1992); (c) factors such as
saliency of forms (Bardovi-Harlig, 1987; Sorace, 1991);(d) compe-
tition between form and meaning (Bransdorfer, 1992;Mangnbhai,
1991;VanPatten, 1990);and (e) “uptake”studies, that is, learners’
claims regarding what had drawn their attention and what they
had learned during the lesson (e.g.,Slimani, 1987,1992).However,
the limitations of these studies t o support the role of consciousness
in the sense of awareness at the level of noticing include the
following: (a) There is a clear mismatch between processing L2
input while performing diary entries and processing incoming
Leow 119
input i n natural interaction; and (b)the other studies cited did not
specifically address the role of consciousness or awareness and
consequently can only provide anecdotal evidence for the “noticing
hypothesis.” In other words, these studies cannot explain what role
attention, and consequently awareness, played in learners’ behav-
ioral patterns.
Robinson (1995a) attempted to reconcile these two positions
by proposing to define the concept of noticing to mean “detection
plus 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-term
memory must exceed a certain threshold before it becomes a part
of awareness. Thus, Robinson identified noticing with what is
“both detected and then further activated following the allocation
of attentional resources from a central executive” (p. 297). Re-
hearsal occurring after detection is viewed from a capacity
model of attention (e.g., Wickens, 1989), which sees resources
allocated to accomplish different types of task demands that
may call for either data-driven or conceptually driven processing.
Citing Best (19921, Robinson described data-driven processing as
stimuli encoded i n small pieces and later assembled i n working
memory. One example, according to Best, may be the visual
marks t h a t make up a word. On the other hand, conceptually
driven processing is top-down and stems from a n effort to
integrate encoded stimuli within the context of surrounding stim-
uli. According to Best (1992, p. 76), this type of processing draws
on “expectations or plans” derived from the activation of prior
knowledge or schemata and, as Robinson (p. 298) points out, not
unlike the formal content reading schemata (cf. Carrell, 1992). In
sum, Robinson viewed awareness as the “function of 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 but
also distinguishing noticing from simple detection (p. 298). In this
way, concurring with Schmidt’s contention that no learning can
occur without awareness at the level of noticing, Robinson assigns
“simple” detection (without awareness) a less crucial role in the
encoding of information into short-term memory in language

learning 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 in
current empirical studies that have followed these lines of theo-
retical discussion. Operationalizing and measuring awareness in
language learning have been largely problematic due t o (a)differ-
ent definitions of what constitutes awareness; (b) the rapidity of
a learner’s subjective experience of cognitive registration; and
(c) the potential inability to verbalize one’s awareness (Schmidt’s
1995, 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 operationalized
awareness as participants? ability t o verbalize the rules of a
sequence of stimuli in response to a probe or question as to
whether they noticed any pattern of rule formation underlying the
stimuli. 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 if
participants 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 some
variation and not without potential validity concerns. For exam-
ple, Robinson used a yes/no written questionnaire t o elicit 3 levels
of awareness during a training session. It asked participants
whether 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
Leow 121
grammaticality judgment task), thereby potentially compromis-

ing learners’ ability t o separate what they noticed during the task
and what they noticed during the training session.
Hartman et al. (1989) operationalized awareness by measur-
ing learners’ ability to indicate underlying patterns they noticed
during 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+ consecutive
words (“aware”),they placed participants in the “unaware” group
who did not really represent participants who were “unaware”but
rather who were more likely partially “aware.”
There has been (a) considerable controversy regarding the
role of awareness in language learning, (b) inconclusive evidence
for its effects on L2 learners’ behavior, and (c) two methodological
problems 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 of
awareness derived from SLA (e.g., Schmidt, 1990) and cognitive
science (e.g., Schacter, 1992): Awareness refers to “a particular
state of mind in which an individual has undergone a specific
subjective experience of some cognitive content or external stimu-
lus” (Tomlin & Villa, 1994, p. 193). Allport (1988) listed three
criteria as important for establishing whether awareness is dem-
onstrated or not: (a) a show of some behavioral or cognitive change
due t o the experience, (b) a report of being aware of the experience,
and (c) a description of this subjective experience. In their review
of the operationalization of awareness, Carr and Curran (1994)
provided several methodological assessments of awareness that
include noting changes in learners’ behavioral patterns together
with some form of meta-awareness; that is, reporting on their
cognitive registration of the incoming stimuli. However, the timing
of operationalizing awareness, that is, while exposed to L2 data or
after such exposure, appears crucial in addressing its role in
language learning. If one assumes that learners create a mental
representation of a detected or noticed form while interacting with
such a form, then their level or degree of awareness should have

an impact on what they encode and later retrieve from their
memory. Because post-exposure questions/probes and question-
naires have proven problematic in measuring what role awareness
plays during learners’ actual interaction with L2 data, the use of
concurrent think-aloud protocols should provide a clearer picture
of learners’ allocation of cognitive resources, the role of awareness,
and potential levels or degrees of awareness while processing L2
forms.3
Method
Though at present operationalizing o r measuring the poten-

tial for dissociation between awareness and detection in language
learning poses difficulties, one can test Schmidt’s 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 awareness
and its potential effects on learners’ immediate behavior on both
a 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’ mental
representations and subsequent recognition and accurate written
production of such forms?
Before the study could address the role of levels of awareness,
it needed to establish that noticing did indeed occur. I defined
noticing as some form of subjective awareness of new targeted
linguistic forms in L2 data as revealed in learners’ think-aloud
protocols produced while completing a problem-solving task. In
this task, I operationalized noticing as making a verbal or written
correction of the targeted form (e.g., self-correction after noticing
a mismatch between one’s answer and that provided by another
clue), 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-aloud
protocols produced by the learners from the point of view of
Tomlin and Villa’s (1994) restricted definition of awareness
Leow 123
(above) together with the following methodological criteria

adapted from previous research: (a) a show of some behavioral or
cognitive change (e.g., verbal or 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 or (c) some form of
metalinguistic description of the underlying rule. I did not ask
learners to report or describe any morphological rule found in the
task.
Participants. Participants were 28 beginning students of
Spanish 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 carefully
selected these participants for their performances on the pretest
and on the experimental task to provide a consistent baseline
performance for all (see Analysis, below). Before participating in
the experiment, their formal exposure to Spanish was approxi-
mately 7.5 hours or 3 weeks. They were enrolled in a first-year
Spanish program that promoted all 4 skills in an information-
sharing context.
Targeted morphological forms. The linguistic forms were the
“irregular” third person singular and plural preterit forms of
stem-changing -ir verbs in Spanish. For example, the verb repetir
“to repeat” is conjugated in the preterit:
repeti “I repeated,” repetiste “you repeated,” repitid
“he/she/you repeated,” repetimos “we repeated,” repitieron
“they/you repeated.”
There is a stem-change in both the third singular and plural forms
where the vowel e in the stem changes to an i. Similarly, -ir verbs
that have a stem-changing -0-also undergo this irregularity. For
example, 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
awareness during performance on the type of experimental expo-

sure task chosen here.
Experimental exposure task. Because it was imperative t o
establish the presence of awareness at least at the level of noticing,
I chose the crossword puzzle for the following 3 reasons. First, the
problem-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 of
the task. Third, this task encourages naturally occurring process-
ing that lends itself to the use of think-alouds and therefore should
not have any substantial effect on participants’ performances. To
encourage participants’ noticing of the targeted linguistic forms
while completing the crossword puzzle, I manipulated other clues
in the crossword t o provide the stem-changing vowels in the
irregular forms. For example, the “u”of rnuri6 was provided by the
“u” of t u ‘Lyour’’derived from the clue Es u n adjetivo posesivo
(segunda persona singular) “It is a possessive adjective (second
person singular),”while the “i”ofrepiti6 was provided by the “i“ of
S L derived from the clue El contrario de <<no>> en espafi01,~
66 0’
thereby promoting some form of attention to the mismatch be-

tween the 2 vowels in question (cf. Appendix B).
Pre- and post-exposure assessment tasks. I measured partici-
pants’ intake and written production of the linguistic forms under
study by 2 tasks. Each task had 15 items, of which 5 were
distractors. A multiple-choice recognition assessment task (cf.
Leow, 1993, 1995; Shook, 1994) measured participants’ intake. In
this task participants circled 1of 4 possible completions t o form a
grammatical sentence. The items used on the pre- and post-tests
included the same verbs. To promote greater recognition of the
linguistic items to which participants were recently exposed, these
items were similar t o the clues on the crossword, with the
following modifications: I changed the subjects of the verbs and
randomly assigned the order of the items (cf. Appendix C). To
measure participants’ ability to produce the correct forms in a
structured but different context, I designed a fill-in-the-blank
Leow 125
written production task. I also provided the English gloss and the
Spanish infinitive t o ensure production of the targeted linguistic
forms (cf Appendix D).
Procedure
One class session before performing the experimental expo-

sure task, the regular instructor formally presented the regular
forms of -ir verbs (verbal conjugations) in the preterit to the
participants on the blackboard. I did not consider teacher bias a
factor in this study for the following 2 reasons: (a)The information
participants 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 what
this study was investigating. After this formal exposure to the
targeted forms, I then administered the pretest. I randomly or-
dered the 2 assessment tasks t o address any potential effect of
task order.
On the day of the experiment, participants reported t o the
language laboratory during their regular classroom period. They
received a packet comprising a cover page with an agreement
section and instructions explaining the nature of the tasks. Par-
ticipants were informed that there were specific instructions in
the packets. The instructions for the experimental task were
designed t o alert participants t o the task and orient their attention
t o the presence of the targeted forms. These instructions were:
Here is a crossword puzzle similar to the ones you have
done in class. Use the clues provided and see if you can
successfully complete this crossword. Please note that
some of the forms of the verbs are IRREGULAR. As
you do the crossword, try to speak aloud into the micro-
phone your thouphts WHILE you perform the task for each
word, NOT AFTER. Include the numbers of the clues also
while you are thinking aloud. Please try to speak in a clear
voice.
The tape-recorders were turned on and the participants

proceeded to complete the crossword puzzle that lasted 10 minutes
or less. Once the crossword puzzle was completed, participants
turned off the recorders and immediately performed the post-
exposure recognition and written production task, again randomly
ordered to address the potential effects of task order. They could
not refer back t o the puzzle.
Analysis and Results
First, t o establish that participants did indeed notice the

targeted forms while completing the crossword puzzle, I scored
their transcribed think-aloud protocols, using the following crite-
ria: any verbal or written correction or comment on each targeted
form in the input scored one point, for a maximum total of
10 points. To establish a consistent baseline performance for all
participants, I included in the study only participants who scored
zero on the pretest and produced 100% correct forms on the
crossword (for example, someone who did not complete clue
number 12 down, thereby leaving the incorrect corregio, was
eliminated). This strict selection of participants eliminated 57 of
the original 85 participants.
To address the levels of awareness, I initially examined each
think-aloud protocol from 2 broad categories (+ cognitive change,
k meta-awareness) using the following criteria: (a) + cognitive
change, - meta-awareness indicated a show of some behavioral or
cognitive change due t o the experience; and (b) + cognitive
change, + meta-awareness included either (i) a report of being
aware of the experience andor (ii) some form of metalinguistic
description of the underlying morphological rule. However, the
protocols soon revealed the need t o address two issues: (a) the
definition of what constitutes “a report of being aware of the
experience,” that is, meta-awareness; and (b) the more subtle
Leow 127
degrees of meta-awareness. A few instances of “reports” occurred

in the protocols, such as:
(1) “. . . the opposite of no, so it is supposed to be si, so 11across
is gonna be mintieron (fills in mintieron) . . .”
(2) “. . . 9 across . . . si, mmm, it would appear that mentir, that
would not be correct, so 11horizontal would no longer be men
tieron and is now mintieron, so I have to remember that . . .”
(3) “. . . four down would be tu, so durmi6 (writes in durmi6)
done cool. . .”
To arrive at a coding of “reports,” I examined the complete
protocols in which these few statements were found. The first
statement was found in the following protocol:
(4) “. . . 11across, (reads clue) . . . mentir, mentieron, let’s see
if that agrees with 9 down . . . the opposite of no, so it is
supposed to be si, so 11 across is gonna be mintieron (fills in
mintieron) . . .corregir . . .corregid, maybe? Let’s check 12 down
. . . I’m just gonna put corrigi6, kind of lazy (fills in corrigi6) . .
.24,. . .(reads clue) repetieron, maybe? Let’s check 25 down. . .
the verb t o go in Spanish, ir, so it’s gonna be repitieron (fills in
repitieron) . . .”
Because there was no explicit reference to either criterion (a), a
report of being aware of the experience, or criterion (b), some form
of metalinguistic description of the underlying rule, I decided to
view instances of such statements as demonstrating only a behav-
ioral or cognitive change. Consequently, I coded the targeted forms
minti6, corrigib, and repitieron as + cognitive change, - meta-
awareness, - morphological rule.
The second statement was found i n the context of the follow-
ing protocol:
( 5 ) “. . . 5 down . . .pedieron, pidieron actually, 9 across . . . si,
mmm, it would appear that mentir, that would not be correct,
so 11 horizontal would no longer be mentieron and is now
mintieron, so I have to remember that (changes mentieron to
mintieron) (pause) . . .12 . . .si, oh, alright, well, I guess I made

another mistake, corregir is not corregio, it is corrigio (changes
corregio t o corrigi6) . . . 17 down, oh, I made another mistake,
19 would be se durmieron instead of se dormieron (changes
dormieron t o durmieron) . . .”
Though this participant did not verbalize the underlying morpho-
logical rule, he did appear to have demonstrated a report of such
an 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 following
protocol:
(6) “ . . .12 down, si . . . the stem changes from e t o i . . . corrigio
(writes in corrigid) . . . number 19 dormir . . . duermieron, now
let’s see where is number 17 down? oh se durmieron, con a with
a u . . . repetir, ellos repitieron? I think it has a stem change, 25
down ir, yes! . . . four down would be tu, so durmib (writes in
durmid) done cool, I like this. Number 5 eZZos of pedir, they
asked, pidieron and it’s good . . ., nine is gonna be si again
mintieron and obviously I spelled number 11 wrong so I can
fix that (changes mentieron to mintieron).”
Clearly this participant demonstrated not only a report of such an
experience (durmio,pidieron, and mintieron) but also verbalized
the underlying morphological rule (corrigio, durmieron, and repi-
tieron).I coded all the targeted forms + cognitive change, + meta-
awareness, + morphological rule.
Table 1presents samples of the two categories of awareness
as revealed by the protocols.
Two judges agreed upon the re-coding of the targeted forms
in Category A. They then scored each targeted form found on over
50% of randomly selected protocols for levels of awareness. Inter-
rater reliability was 100%. Based on the results, I assigned 15
participants who fulfilled criterion (a) and also fulfilled either
criterion (bi) and/or criterion (bii) t o Category A (+ cognitive
Leow 129
Table 1
S a m p l e s of the Two Categories of Awareness
Category A
(+ cognitive change, + meta-awareness,k morphological rule)
Coding Decision Samples
(participants - 12 down is si so the stem changes e to i, corrigio . . .

fulfilled criteria (11, - looks like all the e’s are becoming i’s in the stems . . .
(21, and (3) and - 4 down (mumble) tu so dormir is irregular in the
coded + third person so that’s gotta be durmio with a u . . .
morphological rule - mmm alright, the stems are changing, from e to i
for these forms) and a h o to u . . .
(participants - and the verb to go is ir . . . oh cool, so that corrects
fulfilled criteria ( l ) , number 24 across, repitieron, so you find out that’s
(2) but not (3) and ir OK. . .
coded - morphological - number 5 ellos ofpedir . . .pidieron and it is good . . .
rule for these forms) - so 11horizontal would no longer be mentieron and
is now mintieron, so I have to remember that
(changes mentieron to mintieron) . . .
Category B
(+ cognitive change, - meta-awareness,- morphological rule)
Coding Decision Samples
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(participants - 1down divirtieron ...

fulfilled only - third person plural preferio, prefirio . . .
criterion (1)and - 12 down opposite of no is si (changes corregio to
coded as above) corrigi6). . .
- to go en espaiioE25 ir (changes repetieron to
repitieron). . .
- 17 down, it’s tu so it turns se dormieron to se
durmieron . . .
change, + meta-awareness, -t morphological rule). Thirteen

participants who fulfilled only criterion (a) for the targeted forms
I assigned t o Category B (+ cognitive change, - meta-awareness,
- morphological rule).
Qualitative Analysis
A careful analysis of the think-aloud protocols revealed that

meta-awareness appears to correlate with the use of conceptually
driven processing, such as hypothesis testing and morphological
rule formation. For example, here are samples of hypothesis test-
ing from several of the participants’ think-aloud protocols in
Category A:
(7) “. . . ellos repitieron? I think it has a stem change, 25 down,
ip; yes! . . .”
. . .”
“. . . I guess 12 down is si again so it is d6ja vu
“. . . 11across is mentieron I wonder what it is . . . let’s see,
it’s ellos and 9 down, I’ll bet it is el contrario so its min-
tieron . . .”
“. . . uyer mi profesoru corregio, bet it’s corregio, I bet I’m
right, what is 12 down? el contrario de no . . . corrigio! it’s
with the z, what do you know? . . .”
“. . . OK, 3 down laformu de . . . uestirse, vestirse ellu ues ella
ues-, uisto, vistio, se uistio si, s i (name) because we thought
vestirse is an irregular verb . . .”
“. . . well, I guess I made another mistake, corregir is not
corregid, it’s corrigi6 . . .”
“. . . number 9, the opposite of no ha! now I see I am wrong
ha with my little theory about e to ie and o t o ue because
this one here I just had e in just one space so I assume it
didn’t change but I was wrong because it changed to an i
because of the i in si so I just changed my answer for
number 11 O K . . .”
“. . . OK third person plural form of the verb pedir they
asked for, 5 down . . .pedieron (pause) OK I am wondering
whether because I have pidieron (spells out) and I am
thinking it should be pe- but that would make it dormeo
Leow 131
with an e instead of i . . . I guess I will see how the other

ones go and take a look at that one again . . .”
Samples of morphological rule formation found in Category A’s
participants include the following:
(8) “. . .12 down, si, the stem changes e to i, corrigio . . .”
“. . . pedir is pedieron, no, geez, these stem changes are
really fooling me . . .”
“, . . 17 down, adjetiuo posesiuo segunda persona singulal;
I have seen this before, I just . . . tu . . . mmm all of these
e’s change to an i . . .”
“. . . I think we’re seeing a pattern here (after commenting
on the targeted forms being irregular) . . . pidieron defi-
nitely, also irregular . . .”
“. . . OK the opposite of no is si which means that for 11
across I have mentieron but it should be mintieron for the
third person plural past tense of mentil; mintieron which
makes me now realize that pidieron with an i is probably
right since the e in mentir changes to an i so the e inpedir
is also going t o change t o an i as well . . .”
“. . . OK, now here yet againprefe- (spells out) is going t o
change to prefi- prefirio . . .”
“. . . It should be tu . . . durmi6, mmm, alright, the stems
are changing now, from e t o i . . . o to u, mmm . . .”
“. . . I guess I have to throw a u in whenever it’s a dormirse-
like infinitive . . .”
“. . . OK 12 down, the opposite of no is si which means that
where I have corregi6 it becomes corrigi6 corrigi6 so the
third person singular of past tense corregir is corrigio
(changes e to an i ) . . . looks like all the e’s are becoming i’s
in the stems . . .”
On the contrary, the think-aloud protocols of Category B’s partici-
pants were marked by the absence of any apparent conceptually
driven processing of noticed forms. Here is a typical think-aloud

protocol by one learner in Category B (the clues are edited):
(9) “. . . number 1,urn, OK horizontal. . . it doesn’t fit (heh!
heh!), number seven, I will go on, if I can find it, 7 across .
. . OK, I’ll do number 1I figured it out, um, morio, number
7 ella . . . dormo, dormi6, number 7 done, number 8, oppo-
site of no is si, opposite of no number 10 where is it? si,
number 11,um OK mentir let me find number 11, men-
tieron, 13 escribir 13, escribio, OK 15 . . . let me find it,
corregi6, 19 across dormirse, I’ve seen this before so 19 se
dormieron, um 20, the form of the verb . . . abrir abri- 20,
abrio, 21, form of cubrir ella form would be, um, cubrio? it
fits, 23 opposite of no is si, 23 where can I find it? 24, the
form of the verb of repetir is repetieron, re-pe-ti-eron. Ver-
tical, 1down, the form of the verb ellos, preterit diuertirse,
where is 1 down? se divirtieron, the form of unos como en
u n libro, where is 2 down oh, um (pause) u n (changes o t o
u in murid), form of the verb um vestirse number 3 down
se uisti6, 4, where is number 4? um t u . . . durmio um t u
(changes o to u ) ,form of the verb ellospedir this would be .
. . pidieron, 5 down this would bepidieron, 9 opposite of no
is si where is 9 now? OK, (changes e t o i in mintieron),OK
it’s done, 12 down opposite of no is si (changes e t o i in
corrigio), 16, 16? OK, des- 61 form, descubrio descubrio, 17
en espaiiol, 17 t u (changes o t o u in durmieron), 18 form of
the verb preterit, number 18 preferir prefiero? prefe- pre-
firi6, 19, form of the verb preterit salir, um, salgo? no
salieron, where is 19? sa-lie-ron, 25 t o go en ir, where is 25?
(changes e to i in repitieron), ir it is done. By the way, I
didn’t learn a thing.”
As can be seen, this learner demonstrated subjective awareness
of all the targeted items in the crossword; she made written and
oral 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
Leow 133
puzzle. This relatively low level of awareness, or absence of meta-

awareness, may be exemplified by her final statement of not
learning anything from the task. However, her performances on
the recognition and written production tasks were 9 and 7 correct
forms, respectively.
I n sum, the findings from the think-aloud protocols suggest
that different levels of awareness lead t o differences in processing.
More specifically, meta-awareness appears to correlate with an
increased usage of conceptually driven processing, such as hy-
pothesis testing and morphological rule formation; absence of
meta-awareness appears to correlate with the absence of such
conceptually driven processing.
Quantitative Analysis
A pretest comprising a recognition and a written production

assessment task administered before participants’ exposure to the
targeted forms revealed no difference in ability between partici-
pants in the 2 categories A and B (both groups scored a mean of
0.00). Consequently, any difference in behavior on the post-test is
probably due to the level or degree of awareness as revealed in the
think-aloud protocols. Table 2 and Table 3 provide a summary of
participants’ scores for each targeted form, total individual raw
scores, total percentages of accuracy for each targeted form, and
group mean scores obtained on the recoguition and written pro-
duction tasks (respectively) for Category A and Category B.
To investigate the effect of level of awareness on learners’
immediate behavior or performance on both a recognition and
written production assessment task, I performed a Wilcoxon rank
sums test (the distribution of scores was not normal) on the raw
scores obtained on both tasks. The results indicate a significant
difference in performance between Category A participants and
Category B participants on the recognition task (z = -4.61,
p = 0.0001). The strength of association (n2= 0.79) indicates that
more t h a n 78% of the variance i n learners’ ability to recognize
t h e targeted forms results from their level of awareness while
Table 2
Summary of Participants’ Scores: Recognition Task

CATEGORY A (+ cognitive change, + meta-awareness, f morphological rule)
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
morir (1) dormir (7) mentir (11) corregir (15) dormir (19) repetir (24) divertir (1) vestir (3) pedir (5) preferir (18)
Ti (+I Tz Ti (2) TZ Ti ( 2 )Tz TI ( 2 )Tz Ti (*)Tz Ti (+) Tz Ti (+I Tz Ti (*I Tz TI (+) TZ Ti (2)Tz TOTAL
Participants
1. 0+1 0+1 oc1 0+1 0+1 0+1 020 oco 0+1 o+o 7
2. 021 021 oco 0+1 O r 1 0+1 020 0+1 021 oco 7
3. 021 0+1 o-co 021 O r 1 021 0+1 O*l 0+1 O r 1 9
4. 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 021 021 0+1 0+1 O + l 021 10
5. 0+1 O + l 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0 +1 0+1 021 10
6. 0+1 oc1 021 020 0+1 0+1 0- 1 021 021 021 9
7. 0+1 0+1 0+1 o+o 0+1 0+1 0+1 o+o 021 021 8
8. 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0*1 0+1 0+1 0-1 0+1 0+1 10
9. 0+1 0+1 021 oc1 0+1 O-cl 0+1 0-1 oc1 021 10
10. 0*1 021 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 021 021 0+1 021 10
11. 0+1 O + l 021 0+1 o+o 0+1 0+1 0+1 0*1 0+1 10
12. O t l 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 O + l 0+1 0+1 O + l oc1 10
13. 021 020 O t l oc1 021 0+1 0-1 0+1 0- 1 oc1 9
14. 0+1 O*l 0+1 O + l 021 021 0-1 0-1 0-1 0- 1 10
15. 0-1 0-1 0+1 0+1 021 0- 1 0-1 0-0 021 Okl 9
% correct 100% 93.3% 86.7% 86.7% 100% 100% 86.7% 8010 100% 86.7% Mean = 9.27
Key: Ti = pre-test; T2 = post-test; (+) = + change, + meta-awareness, + rule; (2)= + change, + meta-awareness, - rule;
(-1 = + change, - meta-awareness, - rule
Table 2 (continued)
Summary of Participants’ Scores: Recognition Task

CATEGORY B (+ cognitive change, + meta-awareness, 2 morphological rule)
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
Ti (*)Tz Ti ( 2 )Tz TI ( 2 )Tz Ti (dTz Ti (t)Tz Ti (*I Tz Ti (-c) Tz Ti (*I Tz Ti (*I Tz Ti (*I Tz TOTAL
Participants
1. 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0- 1 0-0 0- 1 0-1 8
2. 0- 1 0- 1 0-0 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0- 1 0- 1 8
3. 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 9
4. 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0- 1 9
5. 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0- 1 8
6. 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0- 1 9
7. 0-1 0- 1 0-1 0- 1 0- 1 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 10
8. 0- 1 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0- 1 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 10
9. 0- 1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0- 1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 5
10. 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0- 1 0-0 0- 1 0-0 7
11. 0- 1 0- 1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0- 1 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 4
12. 0-1 0- 1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 3
13. 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0- 1 2
% correct 100% 92.3% 53.8% 30.8% 76.9% 76.9% 61.5% 61.5% 76.9% 76.9% M e a n = 7.08
Key: Ti = pre-test; Tz = post-test; (+) = + change, + meta-awareness, + rule; (+) = + change, + meta-awareness, - rule;
(-) = + change, - meta-awareness, - rule
Summary of Participants’ Scores: Written Production Task
CATEGORY A (+ cognitive change, + meta-awareness, morphological rule)
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
morir (1) dorrnir (7) mentir (11) corregir (15) dormir (19) repetir (24) divertir (1) vestir (3) pedir (5) preferir (18)
T I ( 2 ) Tz TI ( 2 ) Tz Ti ( 2 )TZ Ti (2) Tz TI ( 2 )T2 TI ( 2 )Tz Ti (+) Tz Ti (+) Tz Ti ( 2 )Tz Ti ( 2 )Tz TOTAL
Participants
1. 0+1 0+1 0+1 o+o 0+1 oto 0+1 o+o 0+1 o+o 6
2. O t l 021 020 0+1 0+1 0+1 o+o 0+1 Otl o+o 7
3. 0+1 021 oio Oal 0+1 O i l 0+1 0+1 0+1 021 9
4. 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 O + l 021 o+o 0+1 021 9
5. 0+1 o t 1 O + l o+o 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 9
6. 0+1 0+1 0+1 Or0 0?1 0+1 0-1 0+1 0+1 0+1 9
7. 0+1 0+1 o+o o+o 0+1 o t 1 020 020 Oel 021 6
8. 0+1 0+1 0+1 O + l 0+1 0+1 0+1 0- 1 0+1 o+o 9
9. O r 1 0+1 o t 1 o+o O r 1 021 O t l 0-0 021 0+1 8
10. o r 1 o+o 0+1 0+1 o+o 0+1 O t l 020 0+1 or1 7
11. oa1 021 021 021 021 021 021 0+1 0+1 oa1 10
12. 021 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0+1 0-1 10
13. 0+1 0+1 0+1 020 0+1 0+1 0-1 or1 0-0 0+1 8
14. O + l 021 021 Or0 o r 1 011 0-1 0- 1 0- 1 0-1 9
15. 0-1 0- 1 021 O r 1 021 0-1 0- 1 0-0 021 021 9
% correct 100% 93.3% 80% 53.3% 93.3% 93.3% 86.7% 60% 93.3% 80% Mean = 8.33
Key: Ti = pre-test; T2 = post-test; (+) = + change, + meta-awareness, + rule; (*)= + change, + meta-awareness, - rule;
(-1 = + change, - meta-awareness, - rule
Table 3 (continued)
Summary of Participants’ Scores: Written Production Task

CATEGORY B (+ cognitive change, + meta-awareness, f morphological rule)
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
TI (2)Tz Ti (t)Tz Ti Tz TI (+I Tz TI ( 2 )Tz TI (2)Tz TI (dTz TI (2)Tz TI (k)Tz TI (2)Tz TOTAL
Participants
1. 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0- 1 0 -1 0 -1 0-0 0-0 7
2. 0-0 0- 1 0-0 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0- 1 0-1 0-0 0-1 6
3. 0-1 0-1 0- 1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 9
4. 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 7
5. 0-1 0-1 0- 1 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0- 1 8
6. 0-1 0- 1 0-0 0-1 0- 1 0-1 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0- 1 9
7. 0-1 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0- 1 10
8. 0-1 0-1 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 8
9. 0-1 0-0 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 4
10. 0-1 0- 1 0- 1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0- 1 0- 1 0-1 0-0 8
11. 0- 1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0- 1 0-1 0-0 0- 1 0-0 0-0 4
12. 0- 1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0- 1 0-0 0-0 0- 1 0-0 0-0 3
13. 0- 1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 1
% correct 92.3% 69.2% 38.5% 46.1% 76.9% 84.6% 53.8% 84.6% 53.8% 46.1% Mean = 6.46
Key: Ti = pre-test; T2 = post-test; (+) = + change, + meta-awareness, + rule; (2)= + change, + meta-awareness, - rule;
(-) = + change, - meta-awareness, - rule
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 to
produce the targeted forms results from their level of awareness
while noticing these forms. In sum, level of awareness contributes
favorably to learners’ ability to recognize and, to a lesser extent,
produce in a written mode, forms noticed during a problem-solving
task.
I then sub-categorized the data into two groups, correct raw
scores for horizontal targeted forms (se murio, se durmi6, min-
tieron, corrigid, se durmieron, and repitieron) and correct raw
scores for vertical targeted forms (se visti6, se diuirtieron, pidieron,
andprefirid).Mismatches between the regular and irregular stem
vowels found for the horizontal forms were highlighted or made
salient 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 provided
by clues completed horizontally. To shed more light on the effect of
level of awareness on learners’ immediate behavior for the two
types of targeted forms, I submitted the raw scores obtained on
both tasks to Wilcoxon rank sums tests. Results indicate a signifi-
cant difference in performance between Category A and Category
B 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 and
n2= 0.76 respectively) indicate that 100% and more than 76%of
the variance in learners’ ability t o recognize and produce respec-
tively the noticed horizontal forms results from their level of
awareness while noticing these forms. The results also indicate a
significant difference in performance between Category A and
Category B participants for the vertical targeted forms on both
tasks tz = -4.97, p = 0.0001, and z = -3.87, p = 0.0001, for the
recognition and written production tasks respectively). The
strengths of association (n2=0.92 and n2= 0.55) indicate that over
Leow 139
91% and 55% of the variance in learners’ ability to recognize and

produce respectively the vertical targeted forms results from their
level of awareness while noticing these forms.
I performed further analyses to address the effect of level of
awareness on type of stem-change, that is, stem vowel e > i and
stem vowel o > u. Wilcoxon rank sums tests performed on the raw
scores obtained on both tasks for the e > i vowel change indicate
a significant difference in performance between Category A and
Category B participants on the recognition task (z = -4.95, p =
0.0001) and written production task (z = -3.45,p = 0.0003).The
strengths of association (n2 = 0.91 and n2 = 0.44 respectively)
indicate that, although more than 90%of the variance in learners’
ability to recognize the targeted forms with the e > i vowel change
results from their level of awareness while noticing these forms,
only about 44% of the variance results from different levels of
awareness 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 normal
distribution of scores) on the raw scores obtained on the two tasks.
Results indicate no significant difference in performances between
Category A and Category B participants on either task (t = 1.42,
d f = 26,p = ns, and t = 1.78, df = 26,p = ns, for the recognition and
written production tasks respectively). In other words, level of
awareness had no significant effect for taking in and producing
targeted forms with the o > u stem change.
Because the think-aloud protocols revealed 3 levels of aware-
ness whose role might not be obvious in a binary distinction
between 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 accuracy
for the three identified levels of awareness on both the recognition
and written production tasks revealed a similar pattern: More
awareness contributed to more recognition and more accurate
written production of the targeted forms. The percentages of

accuracy based on the three levels of awareness obtained on both
the recognition and written production tasks appear in Table 4.
I also totaled percentages for type of targeted form (horizon-
tal and vertical) and type of stem-change (e > i and o > u).Similar
patterns, except for the o > u stem change on the written produc-
tion task, where the (+ meta-awareness, - morphological rule)
group produced more accurate forms t h a n the (+ meta-awareness,
+ morphological rule) group, occurred: More awareness contrib-
uted to more recognition and more accurate written production
of the targeted forms. The percentages of accuracy based on the
levels of awareness for type of targeted form and type of stem-
change obtained on the recognition and written production tasks
appear in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.
Table 4
Percentages of Accuracy Based on Levels of Awareness

TASK
Recognition Production
+ rule 98% 87%
+ meta-awareness - rule 88% 82%
- meta-awareness 73% 66%
Table 5
Percentages of Accuracy Based on Levels of Awareness by Type of

Targeted Form
TASK
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical
+ meta-awareness + rule 97% 100% 86% 88%

- rule 92% 81% 84% 77%
- meta-awareness 73% 73% 69% 64%
Leow 141
Table 6
Percentages of Accuracy Based on the Levels of Awareness for Type

of Stem-Change (e > i and o > u)
TASK
o>u e>i o>u e>i
+ meta-awareness + rule 100% 97% 93% 86%

- rule 96% 83% 96% 72%
- meta-awareness 90% 66% 80% 6 1%
Discussion
The findings suggest at least 3 levels of awareness that one

can identify and measure when L2 learners notice a morphological
form while completing a problem-solving task. The qualitative
analysis of the think-aloud protocols reveals that meta-awareness
appears 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 of
such conceptually driven processing while noticing L2 data. These
findings provide partial evidence of different types of processing
learners use while noticing a linguistic form in L2 data, as Robin-
son’s (1995a) model of the relationship between the nature of
attention and memory claimed. However, Robinson proposed that
differences in processing (e.g., conceptually driven processing vs.
data-driven processing) may be triggered by type of task. Because
learners demonstrated differences in processing even though they
were performing the same task, the present findings indicate that,
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-
ers take in as potential data for further processing. Learners who
demonstrated higher levels of awareness performed significantly

better than learners who did not, especially on the recognition
task, with over 78% of the variance attributable to the level of
awareness while noticing the targeted forms. Further analyses of
the data to address the effect of level of awareness on the type of
targeted form (horizontal and vertical) also revealed superior
performances by learners who demonstrated higher levels of
awareness. However, level of awareness had no significant effect
on learners’ ability to recognize and produce targeted forms with
the stem-change o > u. One explanation: the form murib, recog-
nized and produced by most of the learners, was present in both
the textbook and episodes of Destinos, a Spanish soap opera
students were required t o watch during the semester, Another
explanation may be the narrow variance between only 3 items
(murio, durmi6, and durmieron).
That more awareness contributes t o more recognition and
more accurate written production of targeted morphological forms
can also be seen in the downward trend in accuracy, ranging from
98% recognition and 87% written production for learners who
provided a metalinguistic description of the underlying morpho-
logical rule t o 73% recognition and 66% written production for
learners who did not demonstrate any meta-awareness of the
targeted forms’ irregularity (cf. Table 4).This trend also appears
in the analyses of learners’ accuracy of the targeted forms based
on 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 crossword
whose potential noticing was not clearly highlighted, namely, the
vertical 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 recognition
task and 88%on the written production task).These performances
are even more remarkable when compared t o the accuracy levels
of the other two coded forms, 81% and 77% (+ meta-awareness, -
Leow 143
morphological rule) and 73% and 64% (- meta-awareness) for the

recognition and written production tasks respectively
These findings provide empirical evidence for the facilitative
role of awareness espoused by both Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1994,
1995) and Robinson (1995a), who have argued that conscious
attention or awareness plays a crucial part in L2 behavior or
development. The results also strongly illuminate the facilitative
role level of awareness may play in subsequent further processing
of forms noticed while interacting with L2 data. However, due t o
the nature of the experimental exposure task, the issue of whether
awareness is essential for subsequent processing to take place
remains unsolved. Future studies will need to investigate this
aspect of language learning by finding ways to operationalize and
measure 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 therefore
extrapolate 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 or less. Third, there is
clearly a need to address the role and effects of awareness on more
spontaneous tasks and other language levels. Future research may
also need to replicate this study but include think-aloud protocols
produced while performing the post-exposure tasks, in order t o
gain insights into the type of processing learners employ as a
result of exposure.8 In addition, further research still needs t o
address possible dissociations between awareness (even at the
level of noticing) and learners’ L2 behavior.
Awareness and Foreign Language Behavior
Summary
The findings suggest the following conclusions:

1. Different levels of awareness lead to differences in process-
ing. More specifically, meta-awareness appears to correlate
with an increased usage of conceptually driven processing
such as hypothesis testing and morphological rule formation
while absence of meta-awareness appears t o correlate with an
absence of such processing.
2. More awareness contributes to more recognition and accu-
rate written production of noticed forms by enhancing further
processing of these forms in the L2 data. This increased
allocation of attention appears t o permit learners to take in
and retrieve the grammatical information immediately in a
more efficient manner when compared t o less awareness at
this level.
3. The findings of this study provide empirical support for the
facilitative 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 L2
behavior: namely, defining precisely what constitutes awareness
and operationalizing and measuring different levels of awareness
in relation t o Schmidt’s(1990, etc.) noticing hypothesis. It carefully
attempted t o ensure that noticing was indeed established before
addressing the role of levels of awareness and their effects on L2
behavior. Defining and operationalizing awareness in SLA will
remain controversial, but the findings here shed a little more light
on the noticing hypothesis, specifically on the facilitative role of
awareness and its effect on L2 behavior.
Leow 145
Notes
‘A report of a study that found evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (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 of
these studies.
3Several researchers have strongly proposed the use of verbal reports as
a valuable and thoroughly reliable source of information about cognitive
processes in L2 research (e.g., Ericsson & Simon, 1980, 1993). Cohen
(1987) also described verbal reports as providing important insights for
enhancing learners’ attention to language input (cf.Ericsson & Simon, 1993,
and Faerch & Kasper, 1987,for further discussion on the use of introspection
in L2 research). Other researchers have critiqued the use of verbal reports
(e.g., Brody, 1989; Perruchet & Amorim, 1992; Shanks & St. John, 1994),
arguing that they are insensitive measures of awareness. However, these
critiques were framed in the context of objecting to procedures that requested
participants to provide verbal reports after exposure to L2 data (e.g., Reber,
1969, etc.; Reber et al., 1985).
4Participants were drawn from 2 studies (Leow, 1998a, 1998b)that addressed
Tomlin and Villa’s (1994)fine-grained analysis of attention and the effects of
amount (single vs. multiple) and type (learner-centered vs. teacher-centered)
of exposure on L2 development respectively. They shared the same academic
characteristics 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 3.5 months after the experimental task,
respectively.
’Spanish does not have many high-frequency words that end with an i. Out
of the two possibilities mi “my”and si ‘‘yes”, I selected si as the clue, due to
the potential interference between mi and me “(to) me”that learners typically
make a t this beginning level. Entering me instead of mi on the crossword
would not trigger the vowel change in irregular preterit forms that already
have an e in the stem. In addition, I did not deem the accent on si to be
problematic because I informed the students that accents did not count in
this crossword.
6The teacher wrote on the blackboard the verbal paradigm of the regular
preterit -ir verbs in Spanish, provided examples, and answered questions. In
accordance with the methodology of the course, the presentation was in
Spanish and the teacher did not discourage questions asked in English.
7Thesefindings are not surprising when one considers the several studies in
reading (essentially what this task entailed) that indicate that learners use
individual processes/strategies while interacting with the same text (cf.
Oxford & Ehrman’s, 1992, review of such studies).
sJourdenais, Ota, Stauffer, Boyson, and Doughty (1995)attempted to address
these processes at a post-exposure stage, although they did not establish the
role attention played during learners’ exposure to the L2 data.
References
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second

language acquisition. In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.),Attention and awareness in
foreign language learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i.
Allport,A. (1988).What concept of consciousness?In 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 language
acquisition. Language Learning, 37,385407.
Best, J. B. (1992). Cognitivepsychology. New York: West Publishing.
Bransdorfer, R. L. (1992). Communicative value and linguistic knowledge in
second language inputprocessing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Brody, N. (1989).Unconscious learning of rules: Comment on Reber's analysis
of implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118,
236-238.
Can; T. H., & Curran,T. (1994).Cognitive factors in learning about structured
sequences: Applications to syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 16,205-230.
Carrell, P. L. (1992).Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. Language
Learning, 42,l-20.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Using verbal reports in research on language learning.
In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.),fntrospectioni n second language 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 of
sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Mem-
ory, and Cognition, 19, 189-202.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13,431-469.
Dulaney, D. E., Carlson, R. A., & Dewey, G. I. (1984). A case of syntactical
learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 114,25-32.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1980).Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review,
87,215-251.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data
(2nd ed.). Boston: MIT Press.
Leow 147
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1987). Introspection in second language

research. Clevedon, U K Multilingual Matters.
Hardcastle, V. G. (1993).The naturalists versus the skeptics: The debate over
a scientific understanding of consciousness. Journal of Mind and Behavior,
14,27-50.
Hartman, M., Knopman, D. S.,& Nissen, M. J. (1989).Implicit learning of new
verbal associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Mem-
ory, and Cognition, 15, 1070-1082.
Joordens, S.,& Merikle, P. M. (1992).False recognition and perception without
awareness. Memory and Cognition, 20,15 1-159.
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does
textual enhancement promote noticing? A think aloud protocol analysis.
In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language
learning (Technical Report No. 9, pp. 183-216). Honolulu, HI: University
of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Leow, R. P. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look a t intake. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 15,333-355.
Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17,79-89.
Leow, R. P. (1998a). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in
second language acquisition: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994)
fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19,
133-159.
Leow, R. P. (1998b). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult
learners’ L2 development in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 82,49-68.
Leow, R. P. (1999a).The role of attention in secondforeign language classroom
research: Methodological issues. In F. Martinez-Gil & J.Gutierrez-Rexach
(Eds.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics: Papers from the 2nd Hispanic
Linguistics Symposium (pp. 60-71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Leow, R. P. (1999b). Attention, awareness, and focus on form research: A
critical overview. In J. F. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Meaning and form:
Multiple perspectives (pp. 69-98). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language
behavior: Aware vs. unaware learners. Studies i n Second Language
Acquisition.
Mangubhai, F. (1991). The processing behaviors of adult second language
learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied
Linguistics, 12,268-298.
Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on
visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15,197-237.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious”vs. “unconscious learning.” TESOL Quar-
terly, 24,617-634.
Nissen, M., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning:

Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19,l-32.
Oxford, R., & Ehrman, M. (1992). Second language research on individual
differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188-205.
Perruchet, P., & Amorim, M.-A. (1992). Conscious knowledge and changes in
performance in sequence learning: Evidence against dissociation. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18,
785-800.
Pica, T.(1991). Do second language learners need negotiation? Penn Working
Papers in Educational Linguistics, 7,1-35.
Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native speaker
negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? In
C. Kramsch & S. McConnel-Givet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-
disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 198-237). Lexington,
MA: D. C. Heath.
Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior; 77,317-327.
Reber, A. S. (1969).Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 115-119.
Reber, A. S. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of
instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning
and Memory, 2,88-94.
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General, 118,219-235.
Reber, A. S. (1992). The cognitive unconscious: An evolutionary perspective.
Consciousness and Cognition, 1,93-133.
Reber, A. S.,Allen, R., & Regan, S. (1985). Syntactical learning and judgment,
still unconscious and still abstract: Comment on Dulaney, Carlson, and
Dewey. Journal of Experimental 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 of
implicit and explicit second language learning. In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.),
Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report
No. 9, pp. 303-357). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language
Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Rosa, E., & ONeill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness:
Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,
511-556.
Schacter, D. L. (1992).Consciousness and awareness in memory and amnesia:
Critical issues. In A. D. Milner & M. D. Rugg (Eds.), Foundations of
neuropsychology series (pp. 180-200). New York: Academic Press.
Leow 149
Schmidt, H. W., & Frota, S. N. (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 i n second language acquisition
(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. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 13,206-226.
Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful
definitions for applied linguistics. In J. H. Hulstijn & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.),
Consciousness and second language learning: Conceptual, methodological
and practical issues in language learning and teaching [Special issue],
AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A
tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In
R. W. Schmidt (Ed.),Attention and awareness in foreign 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 and
realities. Applied Linguistics, 4 , 179-191.
Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994).Characteristics of dissociable human
learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17,367-447.
Shook, D. J. (1994).FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-
to-intake phenomenon.Applied Language Learning, 5,57-93.
Shrifin, R. M. (1993). Short-term memory: A brief commentary. Memory &
Cognition, 21,193-197.
Slimani, A. (1987). The teaching-learning rezationship: Learning opportuni-
ties and learning outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster
University, Lancaster, UK.
Slimani, A. (1992). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In J. C. Alderson &
A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 197-220).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sorace, A.(1991, March). Incomplete us. divergent representations of unaccu-
sativity in non-nativegrammars of Italian. Paper presented a t the Second
Language Research Forum, Los Angeles.
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second
language acquisition. Studies i n Second Language Acquisition, 16,
183-203.
VanPatten, B. (1990).Attending to form and content in the input: An experi-
ment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12,
287-301.
Velmans, M. (1991). Is human information processing conscious? Behavioral

and Brain Sciences, 14,651-669.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some
effects 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. In D. H. Holding
(Ed.),Human skills (pp. 71-105). New York John Wiley.
Appendix A
Questionnaire
You have participated during this semester in a n empirical study

of the irregular third person singular and plural preterit forms
of -ir verbs in Spanish. More specifically, the forms were the
following:
mintio mintieron pidi6 pidieron
prefirio prefirieron corrigid corrigieron
se vistid se vistieron repitid repitieron
se durmio se durmieron se divirti6 se divirtieron
se murio se murieron
Please indicate your knowledge/recognition of these forms before
participating in this study by circling the appropriate answer
below:
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 or less out
of 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 the
semester by circling the appropriate answer below:
Leow 151
a) Yes, I was exposed to most of these forms during the

semester.
b) No, I was not exposed to most of these forms during the
semester.
If your answer is (a), was the exposure through
a) your instructor?
b) your textbook?
c> yourself he., you checked the forms by yourself)?
Finally, your participation is highly appreciated. Thank
you and good luck with your exams.
Appendix B
Crossword Puzzle
~SIEIDI
IT m
IRIM~ I
(hacia el lado) (‘ellos’)del preterito del verbo repetir. Por

1. La forma de la tercera persona singular ejemplo, ‘Anoche, 10sestudiantes (repeated) -
(‘el’) del preterito del verbo morirse. Por las lecciones.’
eiemulo. ‘En 1950, mi padre (died) -en - un
gccidente.’ (hacia abajo)
7. La forma de la tercera persona singular 1. La forma de la tercera persona plural
(‘ella’) del preterito def verbo dorrnirse. Por (‘ellos’) dei preterito del verbo diuertirse. Por
ejemplo, ‘A yer por la noche, mi novia (fell ejemplo, ‘Anoche, 10s chicos (enjoyed
asleep) -en el sofa.’ themselves) -mucbo en la fiesta.’
8. El contrario (opposite) de <<no>> en 2. La forma singular de <<unos>>como en ‘_
espafiol. libro.’
10.E1contrario (opposite) de <<no>> en 3. La forma de la tercera persona singular
espafiol. (‘ella’)del preterit0 del verbo uestirse. Por
11.La forma de la tercera persona plural ejemplo, ‘Anoche, ella (got dressed) -en 5
(‘ellos’) del preterito del verbo rnentir. Por minutos.’
ejemplo, ‘La madre grit6 porque (they lied) - 4. Un adjetivo posesivo (segunda persona
muchas veces.’ singular) en espaiiol.
13.La forma de la tercera persona singular 5. La forma de la tercera persona plural
(‘ella’)del preterito del verbo escribir. Por (‘ellos’)del preterito del verbopedir. Par
ejemplo, ‘Ayer, mi madre (wrote)-tres ejemplo, ‘Ayer,nuestros amigos nos (asked for)
cartas.’ - diaz dolares.’
15.La forma de la tercera persona singular 9. El contrario (opposite) de <<no>>en
(‘ella’)del pret del verbo corregir. Por ejemplo, espafiol.
‘Ayer, mi profesora (corrected) -todos 10s 12.E1contrario (opposite) de <<no>> en
deberes.’ espaiiol.
19.La forma de la tercera persona singular 16.La forma de la tercera persona singular (‘el’)
(‘ellos.’) del preterito del verbo dormirse. Por dcl preterito del verbo descubrir. Por ejemplo,
ejemplo, ‘Ayer por la tarde, Maria y Juan (fell ‘La semana pasada, Miguel (discovered) -
asleep) - en la clase de geografia.’ 100 dolares en la calle.’
20.La forma de la tercera persona singular 17.Un adjetivo posesivo (segunda persona
Wd.7 del preterito del verbo abrir. Por singular) en espariol.
ejemplo, ‘Ayer, Ud. (opened) -12 botellas de 18.La forma de la tercera persona singular
cervezas.’ (‘ella’) del preterito del verbopreferir. Por
21.La forma de la tercera persona singular ejemplo, ‘El semestre pasado, elle (preferred)
(‘ella’)del preterito del verbo cubrir. Par -estudiar espaiiol.’
ejemplo, ‘Ella (covered)-la mesa con 19.La forma de la tercera persona plural
muchos papeles.’ (‘ellos’)del preterito del verbo salir. Por
23.E1 contrario loppositel de <<no>> en ejemplo, ‘La semana pasada, elios (left)-
espaiiol. para Barcelona.’
24.La forma dc la tercera persona plural 25.E1 verbo para <<to go>> en espanol.
Leow 153
Appendix C
Recognition Task
_.
TASK For each of the following, circle the letter which, in your
opinion, grammatically completes the following sentences. ALL
THE VERBS ARE IN THE PRETERIT.
1. Anoche, 10s estudiantes (repetidto repeat)
A. repitieron las lecciones. B. repetaron las lecciones.
C. repetieron las lecciones. D. repitaron las lecciones.
2. Ayer, mi madre (escribir/to write)
A. escribi tres cartas. B. escrib6 tres cartas.
C. escribe tres cartas. D. escribi6 tres cartas.
3. Ayer por la tarde, Maria y Juan (dormirse/to fall asleep)
A. se dormieron en la clase. B. se dormeron en la clase.
C. se durmeron en la clase. D. se durmieron en la clase.
4. La semana pasada, Miguel (descubrir/to discover)
A. descubr6 10 d6lares en la B. descubri 10 d6lares en la
calle. calle.
C. descubrio 10 dolares en D. descubre 10 d6lares en
la calle. la calle.
5. El semestre pasado, ella (preferidto prefer)
A. preferi6 estudiar espafiol. B. prefirid estudiar espafiol.
C. prefird estudiar espafiol. D. prefer6 estudiar espafiol.
6. Ayer por la noche, mi novia (dormirse/to fall asleep)
A. se durmo en el sofa. B. se dormio en el sofa.
C. se durmi6 en el sofa. D. se dorm6 en el sofa.
7. La madre grit6 porque ellos (mentirho lie)
A. mentiron muchas veces. B. mentieron muchas veces.
C. mintieron muchas veces. D. mintiron muchas veces.
8. Ayer, nuestros amigos nos (pedir/to ask for)
A. pidieron diez d6lares. B. pederon diez d6lares.
C. pedieron diez dblares. D. pideron diez dolares.
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.
10. La semana pasada, ellos (salirho leave)
A. saliron para Barcelona. B. salieron para Barcelona.
C. salaron para Barcelona. D. saleron para Barcelona.
11. Anoche, ella (vestirseho dress)
A. se vestid en 5 minutos. B. se visto en 5 minutos.
C. se vest6 en 5 minutos. D. se visti6 en 5 minutos.
12. Ayer, usted (abrir/to open)
A. abre 12 botellas de B. abro 12 botellas de
cervezas. cervezas.
C. abri6 12 botellas de D. abri 12 botellas de
cervezas. cervezas.
13. E n 1950, mi padre (morirse/to die)
A. se morid en u n accidente. B. se mur6 en u n accidente.
C. se murio en un accidente. D. se mor6 en u n accidente.
14. Anoche, 10s chicos (divertirseho enjoy oneself)
A. se divirtieron mucho en la B. se divertieron mucho en la
fiesta. fiesta.
C. se divertaron mucho en la D. se divirtaron mucho en la
fiesta. fiesta.
15. Ayer, mi profesora (corregirlto correct)
A. corregi6 todos 10s deberes. B. corrigio todos 10s deberes.
C. correg6 todos 10s deberes. D. corrig6 todos 10s deberes.
Leow 155
Appendix D
Written Production Task
_.
TASK Fill in the blanks with the appropriate form of the
verb in parentheses. USE THE PRETERIT TENSE FOR ALL
THE VERBS.
1. LQuien (wrote/escribir) don Quijote de la
Mancha?
2. iFue increible! iEllos (slept/dormir) dos dias!
3. Ayer, Hector (repeatedrepetir) sus
ejercicios por 2 horas.
4. Ayer, 10s niiios (coveredcubrir) la mesa con
u n periodico.
5. LPuedes imaginarlo? iAyer, mis amigos (liedlmentir)
dos veces!
6. Ayer, el niiio (got dressedvestirse) sin la
ayuda de su madre.
7. La semana pasada, 10s chicos (leftkalir) de
Georgetown.
8. Ayer, Maria (correctedcorregir) todas sus
composiciones.
9. Anoche, mi padre (discovereddescubrir) su
error.
10. El semestre pasado, J u a n y Maria (preferredlpreferir)
trabajar.
11. E n 1954, mi padre (diedmorir) en u n
accidente.
12. iQuien (openedabrir) esta puerta anoche?
13. El aiio pasado, mis padres (enjoyed themselves/
divertirse) mucho en Madrid.
14. Anoche, 10s amigos (fell asleep/dormirse) en
el baiio.
15. E n 1994, Fernando nunca me (askedpedir)
dinero.

Attention, Awareness, and FL Behaviour

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attention, Awareness, and FL Behaviour

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attention, Awareness, and FL Behaviour

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attention, Awareness, and

Foreign Language Behavior

The 1990s have witnessed a substantial increase of

Department of Spanish and Portuguese.

To operationalize the process of attention in SLA, I

think-aloud protocols gathered not only during the experi-

and awareness in SLA and improve the operationalization

The role of consciousness and awareness in the human atten-

Several researchers have preferred t o omit any role of con-

the dissociation between attention and awareness at the level of

encoding of information into short-term memory in language

Operationalizing and Measuring Awareness

The terminological and theoretical confusion in current psy-

grammaticality judgment task), thereby potentially compromis-

such a form, then their level or degree of awareness should have

Though at present operationalizing o r measuring the poten-

(above) together with the following methodological criteria

awareness during performance on the type of experimental expo-

thereby promoting some form of attention to the mismatch be-

One class session before performing the experimental expo-

The tape-recorders were turned on and the participants

Analysis and Results

First, t o establish that participants did indeed notice the

degrees of meta-awareness. A few instances of “reports” occurred

mintieron) (pause) . . .12 . . .si, oh, alright, well, I guess I made

S a m p l e s of the Two Categories of Awareness

(participants - 12 down is si so the stem changes e to i, corrigio . . .

(participants - 1down divirtieron ...

change, + meta-awareness, -t morphological rule). Thirteen

A careful analysis of the think-aloud protocols revealed that

with an e instead of i . . . I guess I will see how the other

driven processing of noticed forms. Here is a typical think-aloud

puzzle. This relatively low level of awareness, or absence of meta-

A pretest comprising a recognition and a written production

Summary of Participants’ Scores: Recognition Task

Summary of Participants’ Scores: Recognition Task

Summary of Participants’ Scores: Written Production Task

noticing these forms. The results also indicate a significant differ-

91% and 55% of the variance in learners’ ability to recognize and

written production of the targeted forms. The percentages of

Percentages of Accuracy Based on Levels of Awareness

Percentages of Accuracy Based on Levels of Awareness by Type of

+ meta-awareness + rule 97% 100% 86% 88%

Percentages of Accuracy Based on the Levels of Awareness for Type

+ meta-awareness + rule 100% 97% 93% 86%

The findings suggest at least 3 levels of awareness that one

demonstrated higher levels of awareness performed significantly

morphological rule) and 73% and 64% (- meta-awareness) for the

The findings suggest the following conclusions:

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

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1987). Introspection in second language

Nissen, M., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning:

Schmidt, H. W., & Frota, S. N. (1986).Developing basic conversational ability

Velmans, M. (1991). Is human information processing conscious? Behavioral

You have participated during this semester in a n empirical study

a) Yes, I was exposed to most of these forms during the

(hacia el lado) (‘ellos’)del preterito del verbo repetir. Por

9. Ella (cubrirho cover)

Written Production Task