& Donatelli, 2017 for a recent timeline on awareness studies) appear to provide empirical support for the facilitative effects of awareness on foreign‐language behavior and learning. Several levels of awareness have also been reported at the levels of noticing and understanding (Schmidt, 1990) and an intermediate level of awareness between the levels of noticing and understanding, namely, awareness at the level of reporting (Leow, 2001). In addition, higher levels of awareness appear to correspond with higher depth of processing (Leow, 2015a), higher levels of intake and learning and the presence of hypothesis testing and rule formulation.
Recently, studies have addressed awareness as a product and from the perspective of type of knowledge (implicit vs. explicit). Mostly couched within incidental as opposed to intentional learning (see Leow & Zamora, 2017 for a recent review), these studies have, for example, reported evidence that adults can learn aspects of non‐native syntax or morphosyntax while processing the semi‐artificial language input for meaning and without any instruction to search for or learn a rule, and can also lead to both implicit and explicit knowledge (e.g., Grey, Williams, & Rebuschat, 2014; Rogers, Résvész, & Rebuschat, 2016). This evidence was based primarily on the results of the typical chance test and grammaticality judgment tests. Awareness was typically measured via offline subjective measures such as confident ratings and source attributions.
However, whether awareness plays a role in L2 learning has led to a growing debate in SLA. Several researchers have supported a dissociation between learning and awareness in SLA (e.g., Tomlin & Villa, 1994; Williams, 2005; Leung & Williams, 2011; Paciorek & Williams, 2015; Kerz, Wiechmann, & Riedel, 2017) while others have rejected this dissociation (Schmidt, 1990, and elsewhere; Robinson, 1995a; Leow, 2000; Hama & Leow, 2010; Faretta‐Stutenberg & Morgan‐Short, 2011). This issue is discussed in the next section.
Learning Without Awareness?
Studies that have directly examined whether language development can occur among unaware learners reveal inconsistent findings regarding awareness as a process and this inconsistency is split between the two research methodologies employed. Studies relying on post‐exposure data (product) (e.g., Williams, 2005; Leung & Williams, 2011; Paciorek & Williams, 2015; Kerz, Wiechmann, & Riedel, 2017) all reported evidence of learning without awareness, while those relying on concurrent data (process) did not (e.g., Leow, 2000; Hama & Leow, 2010; Faretta‐Stutenberg & Morgan‐Short, 2011).
Where Do We Go From Here?
Research is clearly still needed on the role of awareness in the L2 learning process. There are several avenues of research that have been suggested. First, the construct awareness needs to be established: Is it a dichotomy (aware vs. unaware) or does it occur on a continuum (Leow, 2000)? Second, the stage at which awareness is measured along the L2 learning process needs to be firmly established (Leow et al., 2011). Third, future research needs to probe deeper into the potential co‐occurrence of both implicit and explicit learning during the L2 learning process (Leow & Donatelli, 2017). To address these theoretical gaps, future research in SLA may want to view awareness from both a process and product perspective (Leow, 2015a, 2015b) and situate this distinction within an SLA theoretical framework that typically comprises several stages along the learning process from input to output (Leow 2015a, 2015b). Data gathered at a stage before internalization of L2 data comprises the stage of construction, where L2 learners encode and/or decode incoming L2 data (process), while data gathered after the internal system comprises the stage of reconstruction, where L2 learners report or demonstrate what they have learned or became aware of (product). Employing concurrent data elicitation procedures may address (a) the role of awareness in the learning process, (b) the potential interactive role played by both implicit and explicit learning during the construction stage, and (c) the appropriate categorization of participants into (i) aware or unaware status or (ii) the type of knowledge (implicit or explicit) being developed (Leow & Donatelli, 2017).
Conclusion
This entry has presented a concise overview of the theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues surrounding the roles of attention, noticing, and awareness in adult L2 behavior and learning and provided brief synopses of empirical studies premised on these roles in L2 development. The overall findings appear to indicate facilitative effects of attention/noticing and awareness on adult L2 learners' subsequent processing, intake, and learning of targeted L2 forms or structures embedded in the L2 data, with one caveat: Not all data attended to or noticed automatically become internalized in the internal system. At the same time, notwithstanding the methodological concerns inherent in both the operationalization and measurement of the slippery construct of awareness, further research on unaware learning is warranted given the central role awareness plays in many major strands of SLA research. While current research findings are indeed promising, more robust research designs are clearly needed to address the issue of L2 development premised on the roles of attention/noticing and (un)awareness given the wide variety of variables that can potentially impact learners' processing and processes while interacting with L2 data. Such findings can only improve our understanding of the attentional and cognitive processes involved in L2 learning.
SEE ALSO: Task‐Based Learning: Cognitive Underpinnings
References
1 Faretta‐Stutenberg, M., & Morgan‐Short, K. (2011). Learning without awareness reconsidered: A replication of Williams (2005). In G. Granena, J. Koeth, S. Lee‐Ellis, A. Lukyanchenko, G. Prieto Botana, & E. Rhoades (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2010 Second Language Research Forum: Reconsidering SLA research, dimensions, and directions (pp. 18–28). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
2 Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 483–517.
3 Godfroid, A., & Schmidtke, J. (2013). What do eye movements tell us about awareness? A triangulation of eye‐movement data, verbal reports and vocabulary learning scores. In J. M. Bergsleithner, S. N. Frota, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 183–205). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
4 Grey, S., Williams, J., & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Incidental exposure and L3 learning of morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(4), 611–45.
5 Hama, M., & Leow, R. P. (2010). Learning without awareness revisited: Extending Williams (2005). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(3), 465–91.
6 Kerz, E., Wiechmann, D., & Riedel, F. B. (2017). Implicit learning in the crowd: Investigating the role of awareness in acquisition of L2 knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 711–34.
7 Leow, R. P. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333–55.
8 Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware vs. unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–84.
9 Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113–55.
10 Leow, R. P. (2015a). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student‐centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
11 Leow, R. P. (2015b). Implicit learning in SLA: Of processes and products. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 47–65). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
12 Leow, R. P., & Donatelli, L. (2017). The role of (un)awareness in SLA. Language
