1
Classroom Learning
Of Processing and Processes
Ronald P. Leow
How Do L2 Learners Learn the L2?
Both educators and researchers alike are usually confounded by the differential performances of second/foreign language (L2) learners who are exposed to the same L2 information in the instructed setting. One potential explanation may lie in how L2 learners process the L2 information or how deeply L2 data are cognitively processed, usually subsumed under the notion of depth of processing (DoP). Depth of processing is defined as:
the relative amount of cognitive effort, level of analysis, and elaboration of intake, together with the usage of prior knowledge, hypothesis testing, and rule formation employed in decoding and encoding some grammatical or lexical item in the input.
Leow, 2015, p. 204
DoP has also been operationalized in the literature (Leow, 2015, pp. 227–228) based on type of linguistic item (Table 1.1 for grammatical and Table 1.2 for lexical) and assumed amount of cognitive effort expended during the stages of input, intake, and knowledge processing.
Recent definitions of the strand of classroom-based research, currently subsumed under instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), have centralized the main thrust of this strand on the cognitive processes L2 learners employ while exposed to or interacting with the L2. ISLA has been defined as
a theoretically and empirically based field of academic inquiry that aims to understand how the systematic manipulation of the mechanisms of learning and/or the conditions under which they occur enable or facilitate the development and acquisition of a language other than one’s own.
Loewen, 2015, p. 2
Probing how L2 learners process L2 data and manipulating such processes in learning conditions are clearly theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical issues that fall neatly into the recent definitions of ISLA.
Table 1.1 Operationalization of depth of processing (DoP): lexical items Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
| Low depth of processing | Medium depth of processing | High depth of processing |
Description | Shows no potential for emerging form-meaning connection | Provides some evidence of processing target item | Provides evidence of making accurate form-meaning connection |
Descriptors | Reads target quickly Translates the phrase to English but leaves the target in Spanish Says s/he isn’t sure what it is Says s/he will click something Repeats the target item Carefully pronounces target word Does not spend much time processing target item Low level of cognitive effort to get meaning of target item | Spends a bit more time processing target item Makes a comment that indicates some processing of target item Some level of cognitive effort to get meaning of target item | Spends time processing target item Provides an accurate translation of target item or finds a different way to say almost the same thing High level of cognitive effort to get meaning of target item |
Source: Leow, 2015, pp. 227–228
Table 1.2 Operationalization of depth of processing (DoP): grammatical items Level of awareness | Low depth of processing Noticing | Medium depth of processing Reporting | High depth of processing + Understanding (based on accuracy of underlying rule or form-meaning connection) |
Description | Shows no potential for processing target form grammatically | Comments on target item in relation to grammatical features | Arrives at an inaccurate, partially accurate, or fully accurate target underlying grammatical rule |
Descriptors | Reads target quickly Translates the phrase to English but leaves the target in Spanish Carefully pronounces target item Repeats target item Says s/he isn’t sure what it is Does not spend much time processing target item Low level of cognitive effort to process target item grammatically | Spends a bit more time processing target item Makes comments that indicate some processing of target item Some level of cognitive effort to process target item grammatically | Makes hypotheses regarding target item Provides an inaccurate, accurate and/or partially accurate rule Corrects previous translation Spends much time processing target item High level of cognitive effort to process target item grammatically |
Source: Leow, 2015, p. 228
The role of cognitive processes has been addressed from several methodological perspectives, but only a relatively small number of studies in the ISLA strand of research has attempted to methodologically establish such processes via concurrent think-aloud procedure (e.g., Adrada- Rafael, 2017; Bowles, 2003, 2008; Calderón, 2013; Cerezo, Caras, & Leow, 2016; de la Fuente, 2016; Gurzynski-Weiss, Al Khalil, Baralt, & Leow, 2016; Hsieh, Moreno, & Leow, 2016; Leow, 1997, 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Leow, Hsieh, & Moreno, 2008; Leow, Egi, Nuevo, & Tsai, 2003; López-Serrano, Roca de Larios, & Manchón, in press; Martínez-Fernández, 2008; Medina, 2016; Morgan-Short, Heil, Botero-Moriarty, & Ebert, 2012; Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Rosa & Leow, 2004; Rosa & OʼNeill, 1999; Rott, 2005; Sachs & Suh, 2007, see also Adrada-Rafael & Filgueras-Gómez; Bergsleithner; Bistline-Bonilla, DeRobles, & Xu; Caras; Hsieh; Leow, Donate, & Gutiérrez; Lee; Moreno; Thinglum, Serafini, & Leow; Martin, Niu, & Leow; Medina; Jarvis, Raines, Schaefer, & Sormaz; and Zhuang, in the present volume). Similarly, it is only relatively recent that the eye-tracking procedure is being employed to provide concurrent data on learners’ processing (e.g., Godfroid & Uggen, 2013; Godfroid, Boers, & Housen, 2013; Godfroid & Winke, 2015; Indrarathne & Kormos, 2017a, 2017b; Issa & Morgan-Short, in press; Loewen & Inceoglu, 2016; Ryan, Hamrick, Miller, & Was, 2018; Simard & Foucambert, 2013; Smith, 2012; Winke, 2013; Wong & Ito, 2018; see also Indrarathne, Issa, Lee, & Choi; Lee & Doherty; and Thinglum, in the present volume). For example, almost all ISLA strands of research (e.g., interaction, focus on form, input enhancement, feedback, both written and computerized, vocabulary learning, processing instruction, heritage learners, etc.) claim to address, directly or indirectly, internal cognitive processing and processes. However, many approaches fail to provide empirical and hard data to support the actual use of such processes, hence many assumptions are made regarding what apparently took place during instruction or exposure or even production. To this end, the crucial need to include an empirical section in this proposed Handbook allows it to not only address the paucity of studies employing concurrent data elicitation procedures in the ISLA strand of research (see Leow, Grey, Marijuan, & Moorman, 2014 for a review of the major concurrent procedures employed in the SLA strand of research) but also provide guidelines and impetus for further investigation. The two methodological procedures that have been used to gather concurrent data in this Handbook are think-aloud (TA) protocols and eye-tracking (ET) methodology. The thrust of this Handbook was to use these procedures, as far as it was feasible, and others to address cognitive processing and processes, especially how learners process the L2 input, at the input, intake, and knowledge processing stages (see Leow, 2015), in an effort to explicate (support or refute with hard data) previous findings or provide newer insights into how learners process L2 data. More importantly and unique in this Handbook is the effort to situate ISLA studies from a curricular perspective. This curricular approach places a premium on ISLA studies to demonstrate robust L2 development after the experimental learning condition, instruction, or exposure or after some methodological manipulation of learner cognitive processes during the L2 treatment or exposure before any pedagogical ramification can be directed to the instructed L2 environment, whether traditional, digital, hybrid, or fully online (Leow & Cerezo, 2016).
About This Handbook
The motivation for the present Handbook was the need for a deeper understanding of how L2 learners process L2 data while exposed to or interacting with L2 data and of the learning conditions under which L2 learning mechanisms are manipulated. More specifically, this Handbook sought to address methodologically and extensively how learners process L2 data within these different strands of ISLA studies by addressing (1) the current definition of ISLA (see also Housen & Pierrard, 2005) that focuses on the internal learning mechanisms and learning conditions in which these mechanisms are manipulated to promote language learning; (2) the demonstrated importance of cognitive processes in relation to learning, and more specifically, L2 learning; (3) the fact that how L2 learners process L2 information is subsumed and assumed but not methodologically established in so many strands of research currently being pursued in the ISLA literature; (4) the proposal to situate ISLA within the broader picture in which ISLA lies, that is, the language curriculum; and (5) the logical pedagogical implications, ideally robust, for the L2 instructed setting, whether traditional, digital, hybrid, or fully online. To this end, studies in the major strands of ISLA research were conducted with one major feature in the research designs to increase the internal validity of the studies: Every effort was made to establish methodologically or address directly how L2 learners processed the L2 data. The findings were then interpreted from both a theoretical and pedagogical perspective with the aim of making robust extrapolations to the instructed setting.
The authors were invited specifically for their interest in and research on the role of cognitive processing and processes during the L2 learning process and their personal effort to explicate the findings of their studies based on the role of such processing and processes gleaned for the most part via the use of concurrent data elicitation procedures. An effort was purposely made to include several main strands of research in ISLA that would appeal to readership comprising both researchers and teachers.
Components of the Handbook
This Handbook comprises four sections: (1) a theoretical section in which one chapter introduces several theoretical underpinnings in the ISLA strand of research together with their associated cognitive processes and within which several of the empirical studies were situated and tested, (2) a methodological section with two chapters that discuss critically the two major concurrent data-elicitation procedures (TAs and ET) employed in ISLA research to address L2 processing and processes, (3) an empirical research section with several chapters reporting on empirical studies conducted within several major research areas of ISLA, and (4) a curricular/pedagogical section that situates ISLA research within the language curriculum and argues for more consideration of robust pedagogical ramifications derived from ISLA research. These sections are presented as follows:
- Section I: Theoretical Underpinnings
- Section II: Research Methodology
- Section III: Empirical Studies in ISLA
- Testing different stages of the L2 learning process
- Feedback
- Vocabulary learning
- Textual enhancement
- Instruction/CALL
- Individual differences
- Section IV: A Curricular/Pedagogical Perspective of ISLA
Section I: Theoretical Underpinnings
In Chapter 2, Ronald Leow presents a description of the major tenets of several theoretical underpinnings postulated to account for the cognitive processes employed during the L2 learning process, followed by a commentary on each underpinning. He then provides a summary of the principal cognitive processes shared by all of these underpinnings.
Section II: Research Methodology
Melissa Bowles in Chapter 3 provides an overview of the history and use of both concurrent and retrospective verbal reports in instructed SLA research, synthesizing research addressing their validity and outlining the opportunities, challenges, and limitations associated with them. The chapter concludes with future directions for both research and pedagogy. Aline Godfroid (Chapter 4) provides a general introduction about eye-movement recordings and reviews current eye-tracking research on L2 vocabulary and grammar learning. She discusses how cognitive processes (i.e., attention, detection, noticing, sensitivity, anticipation) map onto other constructs in current ISLA theory, with special reference to input processing, intake processing, and knowledge processing, as described in Leowʼs model (2015).
Section III: Empirical Studies in ISLA
Testing Different Stages of the L2 Learning Process
Anne Thinglum in Chapter 5 tests the first stage (input processing) of Leowʼs model of the L2 learning process in ISLA in relation to his postulated three attentional phases and subsequent types of intake (noticed, detected, attended) together with the role of type of linguistic item (grammatical vs. lexical) in adult L2 readers’ subsequent recognition and production. Results from ET and TA data reveal that while all types of intake were evidenced, DoP also pl...