Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Hypotheses

Why do AWE tools seem promising? Two second language acquisition

hypotheses could explain the rationale for implementing AWE tools to achieve second language learning—in my case, writing successful English RA abstracts by Taiwanese engineering graduate students. These two theories are the Interaction Hypothesis (Gass & Mackey, 2006; Long, 1983) and the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990).

2.6.1.1. Interaction Hypothesis

To begin with, the Interaction Hypothesis postulates that language acquisition occurs as the result of input, interaction, feedback, and output (Ellis, 1999; Gass & Mackey, 2006; Long, 1983). Gass and Mackey (2006) explain the interaction approach:

The interaction approach considers exposure to language (input), production of language (output), and feedback on production (through interaction) as constructs that are important for understanding how second language learning takes place. (pp. 3-4)

Input means the language the learners are exposed to through any medium (Gass & Mackey, 2006). This is considered essential to all second language learning theories. Once target language is comprehensible, learners can take in the language.

Ellis (1999) states interaction may refer to two types of activities. The first type is “the interpersonal activity that arises during face-to-face communication” (p. 3).

Negotiation of meaning happens when an interlocutor “attempts to remedy [the communication] by engaging in interactional work to secure mutual understanding” (Ellis, 2008, p. 972). Interpersonal activities trigger the second type of interaction, intrapersonal interaction, which is “involved in mental processing” (Ellis, 1999, p. 3). When learners encounter language difficulties, they will mentally talk to themselves and try to conquer these challenges; this potentially leads to acquisition (Ellis, 1999).

Additionally, feedback should be provided when interactions occur (Gass & Mackey, 2006). Based on feedback, learners can test their hypothesis by producing the language to continue the interaction. The learner’s production, or linguistic output, considered here is modified output (Long, 1996), which refers to learners' attempts to modify problematic utterances after they receive interactional feedback (Gass & Mackey, 2006). Once learners are able to produce the intended form of the language, acquisition may occur.

Chapelle (2003) applied notions from the interactionist theory to conceptualize the interaction that takes place between a user and computer in a CALL situation, where learners engage in interaction by obtaining “enhanced input” or modified input upon request (p. 52). Enhanced input, such as highlighting, underlining, or changing colors of the texts, simplifying texts, and adding written or visual information, is used with the hope to raise students’ attention on the target language. When learners use an AWE tool, they interact with the tool by revising their errors detected by the tool and negotiating meaning through the modified output. For example, when students use an AWE tool,

Criterion® , they first type their text in the system, after which the system detects errors in the text and provides feedback for students to revise their errors. Students read the

feedback and decide how to revise (or not revise) based on the feedback. If students decide to revise based on feedback, they would try to correct their errors and resubmit it to see if new feedback is generated. If no feedback is generated from the system, this means that no error is detected anymore. However, if students decide not to revise based on the feedback at the beginning, then there is no chance that interaction and modified output could occur.

Through experience with error corrections using AWE tools, it is suggested that second language learning could occur. Judging from the number of errors detected by Criterion® , Li, Feng, and Saricaoglu (in press) found that ESL undergraduate students who used Criterion® for a semester made fewer errors by the end of the semester. The error rates in six error categories decreased significantly from the first draft to the last draft of an assignment. This study suggested that, through the use of AWE tools, it is possible for ESL learners to decrease the number of errors they make for certain error categories.

2.6.1.2. Noticing Hypothesis

The Noticing Hypothesis proposes that the critical point for language learning is noticing (Schmidt, 1990). Learners should pay attention to the gaps between their knowledge and the target language (Chapelle, 2003). For example, if language learners are able to notice the differences between professional writing and their own, then discipline-specific language learning could occur.

As mentioned in previous sections, Cotos (2010) assisted ESL graduate students from various majors with writing RA Introductions in their disciplines by displaying different colors for the analyses of rhetorical moves using IADE. From survey questions, observations, and interviews, she found that students noticed the color-coded and

numerical feedback for rhetorical moves, and recognized the mismatches between their sentence expressions and intended meaning. When students noticed the feedback and attempted to modify their texts, the sentences were recognized as the intended move. Both IADE and human raters’ evaluations showed that students made considerable and noticeable improvement from their first draft to their final draft in their Introductions. This study suggested that the starting point for improvement was when students noticed the mismatches between what they had written and the norms for their discipline. Also, students interacted with the tool by revising their sentences to receive new feedback from the system.

Therefore, in this study, an AWE tool for assisting Taiwanese engineering graduate students’ abstract writing was designed based on these two SLA hypotheses— Interaction Hypothesis and Noticing Hypothesis. To promote interaction with the AWE tool, students should be able to notice the color-coded feedback and take further actions. In this way, there should be a chance for second language learning to occur when

students use the AWE tool.