Attention is a psychological construct that plays a pivotal role in modern theories of L2 teaching and learning. It has been at the center of discussions over conscious learning and subconscious acquisition (Krashen, 1982, pp. 10-11; Schmidt, 1990, see p. 150) and, in recent work, explicit and implicit learning (Ellis et al., 2009). The latest overviews of attention in L2 research have appeared in surveys of cognitive approaches to the field (e.g., Schmidt, 2001), encyclopedia articles (e.g., Robinson, 2007), and introductory textbooks (e.g., Ortega, 2009).

Although attention goes hand in hand with instructed L2 learning, measuring attention and theorizing about its role in educational settings present serious challenges to researchers seeking to translate findings for the classroom. In this article I first revisit the construct of attention in terms of three current trends in measurement practices. I then describe how Norris and Ortega’s (2003) measurement framework may aid in understanding claims about the role of attention in L2 learning and teaching.

MEASURING ATTENTION

Currently, there are at least three broad approaches to measuring attention in L2 research: verbalization, eye-tracking, and neuroscientific approaches. Each approach offers distinct possibilities for observing quantifiable phenomena that can be theoretically linked to attention and noticing.

Verbalization

This approach is perhaps the most widely known but also the most criticized. Introspection-based verbalization requires no sophisticated tools although it poses problems of reactivityand veridicality (Bowles, 2010; Leow & Bowles, 2005). Ericsson and Simon (1993) claimed that two kinds of reports could accurately reflect cognitive processes. The first type, concurrent verbal reports, can suffer from reactivity if the process of verbalization modifies the cognitive processes. The second type, retrospective reports, suggests that memory can be at least partially accessed upon task completion; the retrieval processes, however, may be error-prone and incomplete (i.e., the problem of veridicality). Reactivity could threaten validity in either concurrent or retrospective reports. The threat to veridicality is more serious in the latter type.

A classic example of the use of verbalization in L2 research comes from Leow’s work on learners’ noticing of Spanish verb morphology (1997, 2000). In these studies, learners were instructed to think aloud while completing crossword puzzles. Leow’s results showed that detection plus awareness led to higher scores on measures of recognition and written production.

Eye-tracking

Eye-tracking affords a somewhat different view of mental processes. Though the relationship between attentional focus and eye fixation is much debated, Richardson and Spivey (2004) asserted that such a coupling is likely, providing behavioral and neuropsychological evidence for support. Applications of eye-tracking tools to attention research include, among others, studies of reading (see Rayner, 1998, for an extensive review) and psycholinguistic experiments using the “visual world” paradigm (Barr, 2008, p. 457). These latter experiments often involve recording eye movements while participants follow instructions to manipulate sets of objects.

In a recent eye-tracking study, Godfroid, Housen, and Boers (2010) piloted a procedure for measuring noticing, which is considered to be the subjective correlate of attention by Schmidt (1990, 1995, 2001). Three measures were calculated to assess engagement with pseudo words in a reading task: (a) the length of time of a reader’s first fixation on a word, (b) the duration of all fixations made before the eyes move away from a word, and (c) the sum of all fixations, including regressions to a word after the eyes move away from it. Observed times for a noticing event on each of these measures supported the authors’ interpretation that eye-tracking can reveal increased attention to form during naturalistic learning tasks.

Neurocognitive Evidence

Neurocognitive evidence may offer yet another approach to language learners’ cognitive processing. In a recent study, Morgan-Short, Sanz, Steinhauer, and Ullman (2010) illustrated how electroencephalogram recordings, which provide data for the analysis of event-related potentials (ERPs), can be employed to assess language training under implicit and explicit conditions. Although behavioral measures consisting of learner judgments of gender agreement violations showed that both groups made significant gains in learning an artificial language, ERP measures uncovered differences in neural responses to these violations. ERPs are understood to have specific links with linguistic processing, including the processing of semantic and morphosyntatic relations (Steinhauer & Connolly, 2008). Essentially, this kind of research paves the way for understanding relationships between linguistic structures, proficiency level, learning conditions, and neurocognitive processes (unlike verbalization or eye-tracking).

FROM MEASUREMENT TO INTERPRETATION

Although the above options offer potential for future SLA research, precise tests to examine the construct of attention may also be supported by the measurement model put forth by Norris and Ortega (2003). Norris and Ortega’s dynamic measurement cycle consists of both conceptual stages (i.e., construct definition, behavior identification, and task specification) and procedural stages (i.e., behavior elicitation, observation scoring, and data analysis), which spawn from, and subsequently further develop, researchers’ interpretations about a construct of interest.

With respect to its definition, although attention is not a unitary construct (Schmidt, 2001), specific indicators can be stated for various attentional processes, as described earlier, and these can form the basis of behavior identification. Conceptualizing attention may also involve incorporating recent views that propose links to its neural basis through a number of distinct mechanisms, such as working memory (Knudsen, 2007). Tasks, the more externally valid of which will be relevant to naturalistic and/or instructed L2 learning environments, should then be specified with the goal of eliciting target behaviors. Scaling down tasks so that they are manageable at the experimental level, but still familiar to researchers and teachers outside the lab, is also possible.

Compromises will be necessary, as careful elicitation of desired behaviors requires considering the merits and demerits of each approach. For instance, although advances in eye-tracking methods may allow the examination of joint attention during dialogic interaction, other methods are more restricted. At the next stage, observation scoring will require individuals with training in diverse research skills. With regard to this, and data analysis, rigorous training as well as collaboration between specialists whose interests converge on the topic of attention in L2 learning is encouraged. The multiple perspectives that emerge during such collaboration will also, no doubt, enhance interpretation, which is, by nature, a common endeavor.

REFERENCES

Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing "visual world" eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457-474.

Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Godfroid, A., Housen, A., & Boers, F. (2010). A procedure for testing the noticing hypothesis in the context of vocabulary acquisition. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner's mind (pp. 169–197). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Knudsen, E. I. (2007). Fundamental components of attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 57-78.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467-505.

Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557-584.

Leow, R. P., & Bowles, M. A. (2005). Attention and awareness in SLA. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 179-203). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60(1), 154-193.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717-761). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.

Richardson, D. C., & Spivey, M. J. (2004). Eye-tracking: Research areas and applications. In G. E. Wnek & G. L. Bowlin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of biomaterials and biomedical engineering (pp. 573-572). New York, NY: Dekker.

Robinson, P. (2007). Attention and awareness. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 6, pp. 133-142). New York, NY: Springer.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Conscious in foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Steinhauer, K., & Connolly, J. F. (2008). Event-related potentials in the study of language. In B. Stemmer & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of language (pp. 57-67). London: Elsevier.

Daniel O. Jackson (MS in Education/TESOL, University of Pennsylvania) is a PhD student in the Department of Second Language Studies at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. His research interests include task-based language teaching and cognitive interactionist approaches to SLA. He presently serves as managing editor for Language Learning & Technology.