1. The Role of Noticing: An Experimental Study on Chinese Tones in a CFL Classroom Zihan Geng & Chen-Yu Liu Principal Investigators: Andrew Farley & Kimi Nakatsukasa Classical and Modern Language and Literature Texas Tech University

2. Introduction A growing interest in attention and awareness has led to numerous research studies in SLA in recent decades. Those studies, inspired by Schmidt (1990)’s Noticing Hypothesis, has explored language awareness in many areas, like vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar in international contexts (e.g., Curran & Keele, 1993; Leow, 1997; 2000; 2001; Robinson, 1995; Williams, 2005). This study aims to further examine the correlation between noticing and language acquisition on Chinese tones in a Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) classroom. And investigates the effectiveness of the two most popular measurements (stimulated recall and immediate report) of noticing.

3. Noticing  Schmidt (1990) proposed “Noticing Hypothesis,” in which he argued it is necessary to have learners notice the target forms in order for uptake to happen.  Schmidt (1995) further distinguished awareness at the level of noticing and at the level of understanding.  Recently, Schmidt (2001) modified his position to allow for the possibility of unconscious language learning.

4. Empirical studies Advocates  Rosa and Leow (1994) claimed that learners’ high levels of awareness were associated with more consistent learning than lower levels.  Leow (2000) reinforced the predominant role of awareness in subsequent processing of L2.  Mackey (2006) reported a positive relationship between noticing and L2 development in terms of question forms. Opponents  Williams (2005) provided empirical evidence for implicit learning.  Curran and Keele (1993) also suggested that attentional and non-attentional learning were independent and in parallel.

5. Stimulated Recall & Immediate Report  The methods of immediate report and stimulated recall have been used widely by researchers to measure noticing (Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Philp, 2003; Nabei & Swain, 2002; Egi, 2004; Egi et al., 2011).  Many studies show the effectiveness of using immediate report to capture learners’ noticing. (Nabei & Swain,2002 ; Philp, 2003 & Bao, Egi, and Han, 2011)  Egi (2004) reported no significant difference between the two measurements of stimulated recall and immediate report.

6. Motivation  Although many studies have investigated the role of noticing in second language learning, there is no consensus to date.  Immediate Report &Stimulated Recall are the most popular measurements for noticing but the issue that which one is better has still remained unresolved.  Chinese tones are very important and essential for Chinese language learners, but not many studies have explored the relationship between noticing and learning of Chinese tones.

7. Present Study This study aims to investigate: 1. the relationship between the amount of noticing reported by the students and their learning outcome 2. the differences between the two methods of measuring noticing - stimulated recall (SR) and immediate report (IR)

8. Research Questions 1. Does the level of noticing reported during the immediate report (IR) correlate with learners’ learning outcomes (a) in a picture-description production test? (b) in a vocabulary-list recognition test? 2. Does the level of noticing reported during the stimulated recall (SR) correlate with learners’ learning outcomes (c) in a picture-description production test? (d) in a vocabulary-list recognition test? 3. Are there any differences in measuring noticing between the immediate report (IR) and the stimulated recall (SR)?

9. Methodology  Participants The participants were 13 (7 males and 6 females) undergraduate students at Texas Tech University. Only one of the participants’ L1 is Korean and all the others’ L1 is English. All of them have been taking Chinese courses for three semesters. Their Chinese proficiency level is intermediate.  Instructor The instructor is a Chinese native speaker who has been teaching Chinese for almost two years.  Rater The rater was one of the researchers, who is a native speaker of Chinese and a MA candidate in applied linguistics.

10. Target Form  The target form of the study was Chinese tones and 9 target characters were included: ( 很 hěn, 写 xiě, 可 kě, 是 shì, 觉 jué, 得 de, 等 děng, 要 yào, 画 huà)

11. Materials  Background questionnaire  Treatment materials 4 pictures with required vocabulary to use  Assessment materials Production Test - 4 pictures with assigned vocabulary Recognition Test - vocabulary list (9 target words and 5 distractors)  Noticing checklist

12. Assessment  Pretest (a week before the treatment) Posttest (immediately after the treatment) Delayed posttest (a week after the treatment)  Each assessment has two sessions: a. Production Test (4 picture-description tasks) b. Recognition Test (vocabulary list)

13. Treatment  IR group a. Students – engaging in the picture-description and storytelling activities Instructor - providing recasts as corrective feedback b. Immediate Report (IR) Researcher - notifying students to check the noticing list at specific points (target: 60%) during the performance of the activities  SR group a. Students - engaging in the picture-description and storytelling activities Instructor - providing recasts as corrective feedback b. Stimulated Recall (SR) Researcher - pausing the video of the students’ performance of the class activities and notifying them to check the noticing list at specific points (target: 60%)

14. Procedure DayImmediate Report GroupTime (mins) Stimulated Recall GroupTime (mins) Day 1 (In Language Learning Lab (LLL)) Background questionnaire Production Pretest Recognition Pretest (3) (10) (5) Background Questionnaire Production Pretest Recognition Pretest (3) (10) (5) Day 3 (In class) Immediate Report & Task Training Treatment Production Immediate posttest Recognition Immediate posttest (5) (15) (10) (5) Task Training Treatment (5) (15) Day 4 (In LLL) Stimulated Recall Training Stimulated Recall Production Immediate posttest Recognition Immediate posttest (5) (10) (5) Day 11 (In LLL) Production Delayed Post-test Recognition Delayed Post-test (10) (5) Day 12 (In LLL) Production Delayed Post-test Recognition Delayed Post-test (10) (5) Table 1. Experimental procedure and approximate time **the format of the table was created by Egi (2004) and applied by the researchers in this study.

15. Data Analysis  Scoring (each target character) Recognition Test: 0 - incorrect; 1 - correct Production Test: 0 - all incorrect; 1 - partially correct; 2 - all correct

16. Results Table 2 Correlation between the amount of noticing and learning of Chinese tones Groups Post-testDelayed post-test IR Production test Recognition test -.305.319 -.335 -.129 SR Production test Recognition test.175.749.315.652 Note. IR = immediate report, SR = stimulated recall, * = p <.05.

17. Results Table 3 Noticing reported in immediate report (IR) and noticing reported in stimulated recall (SR) GroupsMeanStd. DeviationSig. IR 2.66671.96638.695 SR 2.00001.73205 Note. IR = immediate report, SR = stimulated recall, * = p <.05.

18. Discussion RQ1. Does the level of noticing reported during the immediate report (IR) correlate with learners’ learning outcomes (a) in a picture-description production test? (b) in a vocabulary-list recognition test? There was moderate correlation between the level of noticing reported during the immediate report and the learners’ learning outcomes in both of the production and the recognition tests, which indicated that awareness was not an essential component in second language learning, specifically in learning Chinese tones.

19. RQ 2: Does the level of noticing reported during the stimulated recall (SR) correlate with learners’ learning outcomes (c) in a picture-description production test? (d) in a vocabulary-list recognition test? There was moderate correlation between the level of noticing reported during the stimulated recall (SR) and the learners’ learning outcomes in the production test, while the correlation between the level of noticing reported during the stimulated recall (SR) and the learners’ learning outcomes in the recognition test was comparatively strong. It indicated that awareness might benefit Chinese learners on tones but it is not an essential component in second language learning. Discussion

20. RQ 3: Are there any differences in measuring noticing between the immediate report (IR) and the stimulated recall (SR)?  There was no significant difference between the immediate report (IR) and the stimulated recall (SR) in measuring noticing, which was in accordance with the findings of Egi (2004). Discussion

21. Limitation  There were several limitations in the present study: 1. Small population 2. Short treatment period 3. Students may not be used to the new teaching approaches 4. Students may not be aware of their “noticing”

22. Conclusion  This study contributes to the exploration of the effects of awareness in L2 learning. The results indicate that awareness might foster language acquisition but it is not necessary. Even though a strong correlation between noticing and learning outcomes of the stimulated recall (SR) group was found in the recognition test, there was not any other strong correlation between noticing and learning outcomes in the study. Further studies are needed to investigate the role of noticing in L2 learning.

23. Acknowledgement  We wish to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Andrew Farley and Dr. Kimi Nakatsukasa for their guidance and encouragement in carrying out this study. And also thank David Villarreal and other staff members of the Language Learning Lab for the technical help. Thank you so much!