Inglês (pdf)
Artigo em XML
Referências do artigo
Tradução automática
Enviar este artigo por email
Citado por SciELO 
Similares em
SciELO 
Permalink
Introduction
In the field of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), the teaching of grammar has been a widely debated issue but remains controversial (Al-Shammari & Sahiouni, 2023; Alenezi, 2019; Borro, 2022). Traditional perspectives advocate a teaching approach focused on language forms, that is, the explicit teaching of grammatical rules. However, an analytical approach with a focus on form allows the learner to notice certain linguistic aspects while simultaneously focusing on meaning (Lee & Jung, 2021). In this perspective, learning is assumed to prioritize communication, but with the possibility of focusing on specific linguistic items to solve comprehension and/or production problems. In other words, the need to attend to the form of the foreign language (L2) arises from identifying a communicative difficulty in a particular context, given that the learner has an incomplete knowledge of L2 rules (Ellis et al., 2020; Van den Branden, 2022). In foreign language instruction, analytical programs with a focus on form, therefore, imply a communicative approach and "demand" the careful selection and preparation of teaching materials. These can be manipulated by the teacher to facilitate the learners' attention on the L2 during meaningful activities, simultaneously enhancing the focus on meaning and the development of learners' interlanguage. Considered an implicit form-focused technique, input enhancement is defined as a form of pedagogical intervention that can draw attention to the enhanced structure, i.e., increase noticing and thereby facilitate its internalization (intake) and acquisition (Ellis et al., 2020). Proposed by Sharwood Smith (1993), input enhancement emerged as a reaction to the comprehensible input hypothesis, which posits that exposure to comprehensible input is the necessary and sufficient condition for the acquisition of an L2. This perspective rejects the relevance of explicit learning and values implicit learning (similar to the acquisition process in one's native language). Without denying the crucial role of comprehensible input in the acquisition of an L2, the literature has highlighted the importance of fostering a certain level of attention, that is, the need for noticing and consequently processing of certain items in the input (Lee, 2021; Leow, 2019; Schmidt, 2012). Based on this assumption, input enhancement involves increasing the perceptual salience of a particular structure. Thus, because it is an external manipulation of the learner, it can direct the learner's attention to the linguistic item, facilitating its intake and L2 acquisition (Leow et al., 2019). Written input enhancement is done through typographical cues, such as the use of color, bold, italics, underlining, capitalization, and font change, among others. (Meguro, 2019). In the literature, several studies have investigated the effect of input enhancement vs. input flooding (a more implicit form-focused technique that includes several examples of the target structure in the input without any visual enhancement); however, the results have been inconclusive (Révész et al., 2021; Santos, 2023). In addition to the inconsistency in research results regarding the impact of these two pedagogical options (input enhancement vs. input flooding) on the learners' interlanguage development, there is also a gap in the literature regarding the effects of the type of typographical cues (i.e., the type of input enhancement) on intake and L2 acquisition. Indeed, only two studies (Simard, 2009; Labrozzi, 2016) were found in the extensive bibliographic research conducted. These studies analyzed different populations: in the first, the informants are French children learning English as an L2, and in the second, the participants are adult university students at an American university learning Spanish. Therefore, this exploratory research aims to partially replicate these studies and analyze the effects of different types of input enhancement on the intake of Chinese university students learning Portuguese as a foreign language (PFL). It is expected that the results of this study can inform teachers and provide new contributions to this area of research. It should be noted that although there is a study with Chinese PFL learners on the effects of input enhancement on noticing and grammar learning in PFL (Santos, 2023), the impact of the type of typographical cues used on intake was not analyzed. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate whether the use of different typographical cues can benefit grammar learning in PFL.
1. Literature review
The literature on ISLA, specifically regarding task-based language teaching, distinguishes between the concept of focus on form and instruction with a focus on forms, which, as mentioned previously, relates to the teaching of language structures in an isolated and decontextualized manner, associated with traditional and synthetic approaches to language teaching (East, 2021; Ellis et al., 2020). Contrasting with an analytical approach with a focus on meaning (which implies implicit learning and rejects the relevance of explicit teaching of language rules) (East, 2021), an analytical approach with a focus on form serves to draw attention to linguistic items during the performance of a communicative activity, i.e., grammar instruction is contextualized (Rassaei, 2020). In this perspective, meaning is prioritized, and attention is directed at language forms during communication. Focus on the form can be pre-planned and proactive (East, 2021), which means different pedagogical techniques can be employed that are described as more explicit (e.g., grammatical and/or metalinguistic explanation) or more implicit (reformulations, input enhancement, and input flood).
A focus on form approach aligns with the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 2012), which argues that noticing is an essential condition for L2 learning. Based on the premise that not all input (examples of the target language to which learners are exposed) becomes intake (parts of the input that are noticed/ recognized by learners and can be processed for acquisition), it is assumed that the integration of new linguistic items requires a certain level of consciousness (i.e., noticing). Therefore, certain pedagogical interventions (such as input enhancement or input flooding), although implicit, will facilitate the processing of information as well as the focus on form (Benati & Schwieter, 2019).
Several empirical studies have investigated the impact of input manipulation through the increased frequency of a linguistic form in the input (input flood) vs. its visual salience (input enhancement); however, the research results are inconclusive (Benati & Schwieter, 2019). In fact, in the literature, some studies have shown positive effects resulting from input enhancement on L2 development (Ajabshir, 2022; Al-Shammari & Sahiouni, 2023; Chung & Révész, 2024; Lee, 2021; Namaziandost et al., 2020), but other studies have not identified effects from the use of this strategy (Meguro, 2019; Rassaei, 2020; Révész et al., 2021; Sadeghi et al., 2022). In a recent study with Chinese learners of PFL (Santos, 2023), the input enhancement hypothesis was not confirmed, as a positive effect on grammar learning was detected under both experimental conditions (input enhancement vs. input flooding). In the mentioned study, two typographical cues (blue color and bold) were used simultaneously to enhance the input, and it was not clear whether the results were due to the choice of this type of input enhancement.
Assuming that the contradictory results in the research in this area may be related to methodological differences, Simard (2009) and LaBrozzi (2016) have examined the effects of different types of typographical cues used to enhance the input.
Simard (2009) analyzed the effects of seven formats of input enhancement on the intake of plural markers in English L2. Participants completed a reading task and a multiple-choice recognition test. This study involved 188 children (11/12 years old), native French speakers, and the target structure (plural markers) was enhanced with the following typographical cues: (1) italics; (2) underlining; (3) bold; (4) color; (5) capitalization; (6) all five markings used in the previous conditions; (7) three typographical markings (bold, capitalization, and underlining). The plural markers of the control group's text were not enhanced. The results showed a positive impact from the use of upper-case letters (capitalization) and the combination of the three typographical cues (bold, capitalization, and underlining).
LaBrozzi (2016) investigated the effects of the type of input enhancement on form recognition and reading comprehension of 109 adult learners of Spanish. The target structure was the present and preterit verb morphemes. Six experimental groups were formed (underlining, bold, italics, increasing font size, capitalization, font change) and a control group (no input enhancement). The results showed that increasing the font size benefited the recognition of the target structure and, in line with Meguro (2019) and Santos (2023), input enhancement had no impact on text comprehension, thus rejecting the competition effect between focus on form and focus on meaning.
We were unable to find any studies on the impact of different typographical cues on input intake in the literature on PFL. Therefore, this study seeks to examine whether the type of input enhancement could benefit the focus on form in PFL without affecting the processing of meaning. Considering that the participants in this study are adult university students and native Chinese speakers, the results are expected to significantly contribute to the field of ISLA, as this audience seems to favor a visual learning style derived from the emphasis on mechanical memorization through writing in traditional Chinese education.
Given that this is the first study in PFL to examine the effects of different types of input enhancement, the research questions are the following:
What is the impact of using different typographical cues on the intake of the target structure by Chinese learners of PFL?
What is the impact of different typographical cues on reading comprehension by Chinese learners of PFL?
Based on the theoretical framework described and previous studies, the following research hypotheses were formulated:
In line with Simard (2009) and LaBrozzi (2016), one of the types of typographical markings used to enhance input will have beneficial effects on the intake of the target L2 structure.
In line with LaBrozzi (2016), Meguro (2019), and Santos (2023), input enhancement will not have significant effects on text comprehension, meaning competition effects between form and meaning are not expected.
2. Methods
In this study, three experimental groups with different types of input enhancement were formed: in the first group, the target structure was visually enhanced using capitalization (i.e., upper-case letters); in the second group, input enhancement was done using bold; and in the third group, a combination of two typographical markings, bold and underlining, was used. The selection of typographical cues considered several aspects, including the results of previous studies (Simard, 2009; LaBrozzi, 2016), and the fact that two typographical formats (bold and/or underlining) are widely used in educational materials (textbooks or teacher-created materials). Given the small number of participants, it was not possible to define more experimental conditions and thus test a greater variety of typographical cues. Following previous research, a control group was also used, which received the text with several examples of the target structure but without any visual enhancement (input flood).
2.1 Informants
This study involved 41 Chinese learners of PFL, who were enrolled in the Bachelor Program in Law at the University of Macau. This program requires mandatory attendance of two Portuguese courses (Reading and Writing Comprehension/ Listening and Speaking Comprehension), each with six hours per week during the first year and the first semester of the second year. In the second semester of the second year, students only need to attend one course (Reading and Writing Comprehension). Data collection was carried out at this point in the program (specifically at the end of the second semester of the second year), meaning the students had received approximately 600 hours of formal PFL instruction. Language proficiency was defined as between levels A2 and B1 (in progress) (Council of Europe, 2020), based on the assessment of the Reading and Writing Comprehension course. The average age of the students was 21.59 years (SD= 2.6), with 53.7% being female and 46.3% male.
Data collection initially involved 52 participants, but data from 11 learners were excluded from the corpus because their responses in the pre-test and post-test were incomplete (the participants identified the errors but did not provide any corrections, as requested in the test instructions). Therefore, the sample consisted of 41 participants.
2.2 Instruments for data collection and procedures
Data collection took place in a classroom setting during the first week of April 2024 (near the end of the second semester, as classes at the University of Macau ended on April 30, 2024). Participation was strictly voluntary and preceded by the reading and signing of a consent form written in Chinese, the learners' L1. After the procedures were explained and confidentiality assured, the learners first completed the pre-test, followed by reading and comprehension of the text. In the final stage, the post-test was administered. Therefore, the post-test was given immediately after the intervention. Finally, the participants were asked to complete a personal questionnaire. The data collection session took approximately sixty minutes. At the end of the session, each student received the equivalent of 10 euros as compensation for participating in the study.
The materials used in Santos (2023) were adopted for this study. Thus, the pre-test and post-test were targeted at the identification and correction of grammatical errors (Appendix 1). Each test had seventeen sentences, ten of which contained errors related to the target structure (present subjunctive); the remaining seven sentences were distractors, with four sentences containing other types of errors (incorrect preposition use, subject-verb agreement error, incorrect tense use, and noun-adjective agreement error). An adapted version of a text from the textbook "Passaporte para Português 2" (Kuzka & Pascoal, 2016, p.155) was used as reading material. The adapted text included twelve examples of the target form (present subjunctive). The text was manipulated according to the experimental condition [(i) capitalization; (ii) bold; (iii) bold and underlined] and, as mentioned, in the control group, the examples of the target structure had no visual enhancement. Along with the text, participants were given a reading comprehension worksheet requiring them to identify the truthfulness of seven statements (i.e., a true/false exercise).
As in Santos (2023), the target structure of this study was the present subjunctive used in three contexts [(i) a doubtful clause (preceded by the adverb "talvez" [maybe]); (ii) a concessive subordinate clause (initiated by the conjunction "embora" [although]); (iii) a substantive subordinate clause dependent on verbs expressing will, emotion, or doubt]. Like Santos (2023), the present subjunctive was selected because this is a critical area in the acquisition of Portuguese by Chinese learners. Furthermore, as previous research (Santos, 2023) on PFL had not found any significant effect of input enhancement through the typographical markings used (blue color and bold), the analysis of the impact of input enhancement with other types of typographical cues was considered relevant, given that it has been rather neglected in the literature. Similar to the study of Santos (2023), at the time of data collection, the target structure had been explicitly taught to the students. Furthermore, according to the course teachers, this grammatical content was explained in class, and the students performed controlled practice exercises and free production tasks. Research has shown that input enhancement is more effective when learners have prior knowledge of the target structure (Chung & Révész, 2024; Révész et al., 2021), and when language acquisition is not linear (because L2 internal representations go through different stages) (Ellis et al., 2020). Consequently, the present subjunctive was selected for this study.
2.3 Tests scoring and statistical analysis
In the scoring of the pre-test and post-test, one point was awarded for each correction related to the target structure. As mentioned, only tests that included both the identification of problem sentences and their respective corrections were considered. Corrections related to the distractor sentences were not scored. Furthermore, each correct answer was scored one point on the reading comprehension worksheet. In either case, no points were deducted for incorrect/wrong answers (learners received zero points).
For the statistical analysis of the data, the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), version 27.0 for Windows, was used. Following the studies by Simard (2009) and LaBrozzi (2016), the comparability between the experimental groups before the intervention was confirmed through an inferential statistical test of the pre-test; the post-test results allowed for the analysis of the impact of typographical cues on the intake of the target structure. The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test [an alternative test to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)] was computed since the study of sample distribution, done through histograms, Q-Q plots, boxplots, and the Shapiro-Wilks test, revealed a violation of the normality assumption, and also because of the small sample size. Due to the use of non-parametric statistics for analyzing the pre-test and post-test data, the descriptive statistics presented are the median (Mdn) and the interquartile range (IQR).
Regarding the reading comprehension worksheet, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used, given the normal distribution of the sample data.
3. Results
As mentioned previously, regarding the pre-test, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was computed to confirm the comparability between the groups, with no statistical significance detected, χ2 = 6.995, p = .072, df 3.
Table 1 presents the results of the descriptive statistics for the pre-test and post-test across the three types of input enhancement [(i) capitalization; (ii) underlined; (iii) bold and underlined], and the control group (input flood). There was an increase in the post-test scores in the three experimental conditions (capitalization input enhancement group: pre-test Mdn= 5.5 vs. post-test Mdn= 7.5; underlined input enhancement group: pre-test Mdn= 3 vs. post-test Mdn= 6; bold and underlined input enhancement group: pre-test Mdn= 6 vs. post-test Mdn= 8). However, in the control group, the median remained unchanged (Mdn= 8). The non-parametric statistical results (Kruskal-Wallis) of the post-test did not reveal significant differences between the groups, χ2 = 5.466, p =.141, df 3, thus confirming that the type of typographical cues used in the input enhancement did not yield any effects.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics
| Test | Group | Mdn | IQR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-test | capitalization (n=12) | 5.5 | 6.5 |
| underlined (n=11) | 3 | 6 | |
| bold and underlined (n=9) | 6 | 4 | |
| input flood (control) (n=9) | 8 | 6 | |
| Post-test | capitalization (n=12) | 7.5 | 7.5 |
| underlined (n=11) | 6 | 8 | |
| bold and underlined (n=9) | 8 | 4 | |
| input flood (control) (n=9) | 8 | 3 |
Note: Mdn = median; IQR = interquartile range.
Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation (descriptive statistics) of the impact of the type of typographical cues on reading comprehension. As predicted in the second hypothesis formulated, no significant differences were detected in reading comprehension, F(3) = .470, p = .705.
4. Discussion
The results of this study showed that the three types of typographic cues used to enhance the input did not seem to have a differentiated impact on the intake of the target structure by Chinese learners of PFL. However, the reading task may have drawn the learners' attention to the target form in the three experimental conditions, as the descriptive statistics showed a trend toward an increase in the median of the three groups. Regarding the control group, the median value did not change, which consequently did not confirm the rising trend as observed in the other groups.
The findings of this study seem to contradict the results of Simard (2009) and LaBrozzi (2016), who identified differences in input enhancement regarding the format used. As in Santos' (2023) research (where input enhancement was manipulated with only one typological marker, i.e., blue color and bold), these results may be related to the familiarity and prior knowledge of the target structure. Santos (2023) only analyzed the impact of one type of input enhancement. Still, in the present study, the effect of three different types of typographic cues was studied, and the results seem to be corroborated because, in both studies, no significant differences were detected between input enhancement and input flood. Considering implicit focus-on-form strategies, perhaps the differences between the two pedagogical interventions (input enhancement vs. input flood) are less evident and do not depend on the type of typographical cues adopted. They may be more related to other factors, such as the learners' familiarity with the target structure, development stage, and internal curriculum. Thus, the results of this study suggest that, based on a certain level of prior knowledge of the target structure, it may not be advantageous to visually enhance the input, as exposure to various examples (input flooding) seems to be sufficient to recognize the structure. Assuming that speakers of a morphologically poor L1 (such as Chinese) may have more difficulty in acquiring a morphologically rich L2 (such as Portuguese), many teachers often adopt more explicit approaches to teach certain grammatical forms (e.g., the present subjunctive). Perhaps for this reason, the use of typographical cues is not necessary to activate the learners' attentional resources after a certain point of instruction. The participants in this study may have achieved the level of readiness required to process the target structure without input enhancement; that is, the frequency (input flooding) of the target form may have facilitated intake, and visual input enhancement was redundant regardless of the selected format.
Finally, regarding the impact of the type of typographical cues on reading comprehension by Chinese PFL learners, competition effects were not identified between form and meaning processing, as no differences were detected between the control group and the experimental groups. The use of the input enhancement technique did not affect the learners' focus on meaning. These results are in line with previous research (LaBrozzi 2016; Meguro 2019; Santos 2023) and the formulated hypothesis.
Conclusion
This exploratory study analyzed the effects of using different typographical formats of input enhancement on the intake of a target structure and reading comprehension by Chinese university students learning PFL. The results showed a trend towards a positive impact of typographical cues. Still, no significant differences were detected between the groups with different input enhancement formats and the control group (input flood). Consequently, factors such as the level of prior knowledge of the target structure and the development stage of the interlanguage may have facilitated the intake of the target structure regardless of the typographical format used to enhance the input. On the other hand, and confirming the second hypothesis formulated, reading comprehension (meaning) was not affected by the typographical formats used to enhance the focus on form, so no trade-off effects were identified between meaning and form processing.
This study has several limitations, notably the sample size and experimental design, as only the traditional pre-test/post-test methodology was used due to technical constraints and difficulties in recruiting informants. Future research with more participants and different approaches (e.g., using eye-tracking or stimulated recall interviews) may help to clarify more comprehensively the potential effects of typographical cues on focus on form by PFL learners. Considering that these methodological limitations may have affected the results, it is expected that this work will motivate new studies and contribute to informed pedagogical approaches by foreign language teachers/educators.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, S.S.; data curation, S.S.; formal analysis, S.S.; funding acquisition, S.S.; investigation, S.S.; methodology S.S.; project administration, S.S.; resources, S.S.; software, S.S.; supervision, S.S.; validation, S.S.; visualization, S.S.; writing-original draft, S.S.; writing-review and editing, S.S.
