Effects of phonetically variable input (PVI) for processing instruction (PI) training and the number of training items were tested with a picture-selection eye-tracking task. Intermediate second language (L2) learners of French (n = 174) were tested before and after they received either a short (24 items), medium (48), or long (96) training on the causative structure with either single- or multivoice input. PI improved picture-selection accuracy from about 10% to above 50% regardless of the training size. Eye-tracking data showed a reduction in looks to the incorrect picture only after the short and medium training: it surfaced regardless of voice variability after the short training, whereas multivoice training led to a greater reduction after the medium training. Long training did not yield a reliable reduction of incorrect looks regardless of voice variability. Taken together, PVI does not hinder L2 syntactic learning. Learners may benefit more from a relatively shorter training with PVI.

This paper introduces a new method to help designers assess the impact of changes to a product platform when introducing a new variant. The method evaluates a platform design by investigating how changing some components will impact other platform design perspectives such as material, function, manufacturing processes and assembly time. To assess the usefulness of this method, it was applied to assess platform changes resulting from successive generations of scanner heads from two manufacturers. The method indicated that one manufacturer improved their scanner head design by improving the functionality of its components and assembly time. Whereas, the other manufacturer's new scanner head used more material and manufacturing processes without benefiting other design perspectives. Compared to existing product family evaluation methods which focus only on maximising commonality between product variants, the proposed method considers potential platform design improvements and assesses them from multiple design perspectives before deciding on reusing existing components or implementing the new design. The information from this method will also complement existing commonality indices.

Two eye-tracking experiments tested (a) whether L2 learners benefit from the consistency of input modality (auditory instead of written processing instruction [PI] training) and (b) whether they benefit from training using the same voice as the test voice. Results confirmed a robust effect of PI training on picture-selection accuracy, yet the improvement did not differ between training modalities. Eye-tracking data revealed resilient looks to the incorrect (first noun = agent) picture even after training, demonstrating the challenge in tuning to the grammatical forms while processing auditory L2 input. The effect of voice familiarity was larger for the male voice, which had longer duration for the later cue (à Marie/Pierre) than the female voice. Auditory PI training can be as effective as written PI training, but it does not immediately enhance learners’ sensitivity to grammatical cues. However, learners may benefit from hearing a salient grammatical cue toward the end of the sentence.

While previous research has shown that processing instruction (PI) can more effectively facilitate the acquisition of target structures than traditional drill practice, the processing mechanism of PI has not been adequately examined because most assessment tasks have been offline. Using eye-tracking, this two-experiment study compared changes in processing patterns between two types of training: PI and traditional instruction (TI) on intermediate-level L2 learners’ acquisition of the French causative. Both experiments used a pretraining/posttraining design involving a dichotomous scene selection eye-tracking task to measure eye-movement patterns and accuracy in picture selection while participants processed auditory sentences. Neither group received explicit information (EI) in Experiment 1 while both experimental groups in Experiment 2 received EI before processing sentences. Results of Experiment 1 revealed the PI group had significantly higher accuracy scores than the TI group. A change in eye-movement pattern was also observed after training for the PI group but not for the TI group. In Experiment 2, when both groups received EI, PI subjects were again significantly more accurate than TI subjects, but both groups’ accuracy scores were not reliably higher than subjects in the PI and TI groups in Experiment 1 who did not receive EI. Eye-movement patterns in Experiment 2 showed that both TI and PI started to shift their gaze to the correct picture at the same point as PI subjects did in Experiment 1. This suggests that EI helped the TI group start entertaining the correct picture as a possible response sooner but the EI did not help the PI group process the target structure sooner than the TI group.

VanPatten (1990) found that L2 learners of Spanish have difficulty simultaneously attendingto meaning and form of aural input. This partial replication of VanPatten (1990) addresses theeffect of modality on attention to meaning and form by including a written mode and by using adifferent L2, that is, English as a foreign language. Six tasks were used in this study: (a) listeningto the passage for content only, (b) listening for content while attending to the content wordinflation, (c) listening for content while attending to the definite article the,(d) reading the passage for content only, (e) reading the passage for content while attending to thecontent word inflation, and (f) reading for content while attending to the definite articlethe. Task results in the aural mode mirrored those of VanPatten's original study,but significant differences were not observed for tasks in the written mode. Furthermore, resultsrevealed that listening was more difficult than reading, suggesting that modality is a variable thatinfluences how learners process input. Avenues for future research are discussed.

This paper critically examines Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis ofattention and Leow's (1998) attempt to operationalize their model. Our position is thatwhereas Tomlin and Villa have moved the attention research forward by describing the nature ofattentional processes and by pointing out that detection is a critical function of SLA, their claimthat alertness and orientation are not necessary for detection to occur is currently unsupportableand does not reflect the complex nature of SLA. We argue that Leow's efforts to provideempirical support for this model fall short of that goal. Additionally, we cast doubt on Tomlin andVilla's position that awareness is not required for the detection of L2 data by arguing thatthe issue of awareness as well as the role of attentional functions must be viewed from a moreinteractive perspective in terms of the nature of the task, the nature of the linguistic item, andindividual learner differences. We conclude by proposing research orientations that may helpadvance the discussion on this topic.