Consciousness-Raising Tasks

FOLKERT KUIKEN

­Framing the Issue

Consciousness-raising tasks came into fashion in the 1980s, in particular through

the work of William Rutherford and Michael Sharwood Smith. They defined con-
sciousness-raising (C-R) as “the deliberate attempt to draw the learner’s attention
specifically to the formal properties of the target language” (Rutherford and
Sharwood Smith, 1985, p. 274).
It should be noted that “consciousness” is often used as an umbrella term carry-
ing various loadings. In an attempt to help to unify discussion and enhance com-
parability across studies Schmidt (1994) distinguishes four perspectives on
consciousness: (1) consciousness as intentionality, dealing with the distinction
between intentional and incidental L2 learning; (2) consciousness as attention,
assuming that learning without some form of attention (or noticing or detection) is
not possible; (3) consciousness as awareness, referring to the distinction between
explicit learning (on the basis of awareness) and implicit learning (without such
awareness); and (4) consciousness as control, regarding the contrast between con-
trolled versus automatic processing. This distinction makes it clear that conscious-
ness—and hence C-R tasks—may entail many different aspects. As a consequence,
for some, the focus of C-R tasks is on the contribution to explicit learning of a
particular structure, whereas for others the learners’ noticing of that structure is
more important.
C-R tasks are closely associated with a focus-on-form approach to language
teaching, in which learners are made aware of the grammatical form of language
features that they are already able to use communicatively. In focus on form, learn-
ers are stimulated to talk meaningfully about a language feature using their own
linguistic resources. In contrast to both a focus-on-forms approach—where gram-
mar teaching is considered to be necessary and sufficient and C-R is seen as an
end—and focus on meaning, in which no attention is paid to form, and where C-R
does not play a role, C-R in a focus-on-form approach is seen as a means to attain-
ment of grammatical competence in another language, that is, as a necessary but
not sufficient component.

The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, First Edition.

Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0049

eelt0049.indd 1 11/2/2017 7:03:13 PM

 2 Consciousness-Raising Tasks

C-R tasks are considered to be facilitators of language learning: data that are
crucial for the learners’ testing of hypotheses, and for their forming generaliza-
tions, are made available to them in a controlled and principled way. In this sense
C-R tasks can be considered to be a form of guided problem-solving, in which
“learners are encouraged to notice particular features of the language, to draw
conclusions from what they notice and to organize their view of language in the
light of the conclusions they have drawn”(Willis & Willis, 1996, p. 64).
What is important, next, is what should be brought to consciousness, when and
how it is raised to consciousness, how often attention needs to be called to it, and
what effect on learner behavior the information is intended to have.

­Making the Case

C-R tasks are recommended as a way to integrate formal instruction within a com-
municative or task-based framework, as they combine knowledge about problem-
atic grammatical features with provision for meaning-focused use of the target
language. They are intended to cause learners to pay attention to specific features
in the input and to notice the gap between these features and the ones they typi-
cally use in their own output. Among the characteristics of C-R tasks, Ellis (1992,
p. 234) lists the attempt to isolate a specific linguistic feature for focused attention,
the provision of data which illustrate the targeted feature, the requirement that
learners utilize intellectual effort to understand the targeted feature in order to
encourage hypothesis testing, and optionally to verbalize a rule describing the
grammatical structure.
The effect of C-R tasks has been investigated in a number of studies, some of
which are discussed below. Fotos (1994) investigated three different grammatical
structures (adverb placement, dative alternation, and relative clauses) and found
that C-R tasks were as effective as teacher-fronted grammar lessons in promoting
gains in knowledge of the target structures, and comparable to the performance of
regular communicative tasks in terms of opportunities for communicative lan-
guage exchange.
Earlier, Fotos (1993) demonstrated the critical role assigned to noticing target
structures in the input. Two types of grammar C-R treatments designed to develop
formal knowledge of problematical grammar structures (teacher-fronted grammar
lessons and interactive, grammar problem-solving tasks) were compared with the
noticing frequencies of a control group which was not exposed to any type of
grammar C-R activity. Task performance was as effective as formal instruction in
the promotion of subsequent significant amounts of noticing, as compared with
the noticing produced by the control group. In addition, a number of learners who
developed knowledge about grammar structures went on to notice those struc-
tures in communicative input after their consciousness had been raised. Moreover,
Eckerth (2008) showed that C-R tasks not only lead to significant gains in explicit
knowledge of target forms, but may also offer opportunities for non-targeted
structures.

eelt0049.indd 2 11/2/2017 7:03:13 PM

 Consciousness-Raising Tasks 3

Not everyone, however, seems to be convinced by the claim that second lan-
guage learners must consciously notice the grammatical form of their input in order
to acquire grammar. Truscott (1998), for instance, argues that the foundations of the
noticing hypothesis in cognitive psychology are weak. His criticisms are that the
hypothesis is not based on a coherent theory of language and that in the absence of
specific predictions, research on form-focused instruction and feedback provides
only indirect evidence. Similar comments have been formulated by others, who
claim that empirical research has yet to validate the role of noticing in language
acquisition and that future research into the relationship between training learners
to notice linguistic forms and the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge is needed
to enhance our understanding of noticing in second language acquisition.
More recently a shift from studies on C-R tasks to research into explicit versus
implicit learning can be noted, while those who continue investigating C-R take
into account issues that have not previously been studied, such as the effect of C-R
tasks on developing pragmatic proficiency, the use of L1 during C-R, and the role
of corrective feedback in C-R activities.

­Pedagogical Implications

With respect to task types that promote C-R, Thornbury (1997) has advocated
using reformulation and reconstruction tasks, which boast a long tradition of use
in language teaching. Since both task types foreground meaning, they fit well into
a task-based model of instruction, and because the starting point in both cases is
whole texts, their use is consistent with a discourse-oriented view of language.
However, their potential for focusing learners’ attention on form (that is, noticing
both what is present in input and absent from output) has received little attention.
He therefore argues in favor of using techniques that exploit both the meaning-
driven and the form-focused potential of these two task types.
A study by Kowal and Swain (1994) in which they presented data on L2 learners
working collaboratively to complete a text reconstruction task may support
Thornbury’s plea. The task was designed to focus the students’ attention and discus-
sion on the form of the message they were constructing. It was hypothesized that
this kind of opportunity to produce language would promote their language learn-
ing by making them aware of gaps in their existing knowledge, raising their aware-
ness of the links between the form, function, and meaning of words as they worked
to construct their intended message, and obtaining feedback from their peers and
their teacher as they completed the task. The results support the hypothesis and also
provide insights into the students’ understandings of how language “works.”
Although C-R tasks seem to be an effective means of achieving focus on form and
of noticing targeted structures, they may be less suited to young and less educated
learners who lack metalanguage to talk about linguistic features. Beginning learn-
ers may also find it difficult to talk about language structure, but they may use their
L1 to discuss formal properties of the target language. One might also wonder how
far C-R tasks have been integrated into language-teaching coursebooks. A study of

eelt0049.indd 3 11/2/2017 7:03:14 PM

 4 Consciousness-Raising Tasks

nine ELT coursebooks by Nitta and Gardner (2005) showed that, despite notable
differences among these books, each one was essentially based on the well-known
PPP (present, practice, produce) approach to grammar teaching. To date there is
little evidence of focused communication tasks in such books.
Examples of C-R tasks can be found in studies documenting their effects, and
may be easily adapted—albeit with some minor changes—for use in the language
classroom. One such example is presented in Ellis (2003, p. 18), where learners are
asked to underline time expressions in a text, such as at three o’clock, on Monday
10th March, or in the next century. They are then asked to sort these time phrases in
a table according to the preposition used (here, at, on, or in). Their next assignment
is to make up a rule to explain when to use each preposition in time expressions.
Somewhat similar is a task on indirect object placement (Ellis, 2003, p. 164),
where learners receive sentences with a verb which allows dative alternation, such
as give (She gave her father a book / She gave a book to her father) and sentences with
verbs where dative alternation is not possible, such as explain (The policeman
explained the law to Mary / *The policeman explained to Mary the law). Learners are
first asked what the difference is between the two types of verb and are then given
a number of sentences and asked to indicate whether they are grammatically cor-
rect (The bank lent Mr. X some money) or not (*The festival generated the college a lot of
money). Then they are asked to work out a rule for the two different types of verb.
As well as a task on indirect object placement, Fotos (1994) contains tasks on
adverb placement and on the use of relative clauses. The adverb-placement task
requires planned language and an agreed-upon solution. In this task learners work
in groups and start by studying sentences containing adverbs in a variety of posi-
tions (Yesterday he studied English, We quickly ate lunch, He studied for the test care-
fully). Next they are given a series of examples of adverb placement (e.g., What
activity do you easily do? and How often do you do this activity?) and asked to say
whether or not the placement is correct. Finally they have to discuss the rules for
adverb placement and write them down as soon as they have come to an agreement.
The relative clause task is an information gap task requiring planned language
and lacking a task solution. The learners also work in groups; each group member
receives a task card which contains a rule on the usage of the relative clause,
including an example of a correct and an incorrect sentence. Each student reads his
or her card and then constructs a sentence. The learners write down all the rules,
and then take turns making sentences for each rule.
From these examples it becomes clear that in a typical C-R task learners are
provided with language data from a text or a set of examples. Next they have to
perform certain operations on these data, the outcome of which will be an increased
awareness of the targeted feature. Types of operations learners are generally asked
to perform include:
●● Identification: learners are asked to search a set of data to identify a particular
pattern.
●● Classification: learners are required to work with a set of data and sort it accord-
ing to similarities and differences.

eelt0049.indd 4 11/2/2017 7:03:14 PM

 Consciousness-Raising Tasks 5

●● Judgment: learners respond to the correctness or appropriateness of the data.

●● Hypothesis-building: learners are asked to make a generalization about a
­language feature.
●● Reconstruction: learners are required to recall and reconstruct elements of
a text.
Other examples of C-R tasks can be found in more specific manuals on task-based
language learning, for instance Willis (1996) or Willis and Willis (1996).

SEE ALSO: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT); Explicit Versus Implicit

Grammar Knowledge; Focus on Form Versus Focus on Forms; Intentional Versus
Incidental Learning; Noticing Hypothesis; PPP: Presentation–Practice–Production;
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)

References

Eckerth, J. (2008). Investigating consciousness-raising tasks: Pedagogically targeted and

non-targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 119–45.
doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00188.x
Ellis, R. (1992). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar
task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14(4), 385–407.
doi:10.1093/applin/14.4.385
Fotos, S. S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use
through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323–51.
doi:10.2307/3587436
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote
students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. doi:10.1080/09658416.
1994.9959845
Nitta, R., & Gardner, S. (2005). Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks. ELT
Journal, 59(1), 3–13. doi:10.1093/elt/cci001
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal
grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 274–82. doi:10.1093/applin/6.3.274
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied
linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing.” ELT
Journal, 51(4), 326–35. doi:10.1093/elt/51.4.326
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second
Language Research, 14(2), 103–35. doi:10.1191/026765898674803209
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities in the language classroom. In
D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 63–76). Oxford,
England: Heinemann.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, England: Addison Wesley
Longman.

eelt0049.indd 5 11/2/2017 7:03:14 PM

 6 Consciousness-Raising Tasks

Suggested Readings

Hulstijn, J. H., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). (1994). Consciousness in second language learning (Special
issue). AILA Review, 11.
Nassaji, N., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–45. doi:10.1017/S0267190504000066
Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London, England:
Longman.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied
Linguistics, 2(2), 159–68. doi:10.1093/applin/II.2.159

eelt0049.indd 6 11/2/2017 7:03:14 PM