Schmidt (1990) claimed conscious noticing is necessary and sufficient for input to become intake. His later papers (2001, 2010) retreated: noticing applies to surface features, not rules, and ‘more noticing, more learning’. Jordan argues the hypothesis is routinely misused to justify explicit grammar teaching.
Versions
- Strong (1990): no learning without conscious noticing.
- Weak (2001): attention to surface forms facilitates learning; “the more noticing, the more learning”.
- 2010: Jordan reads Schmidt as placing “noticing the gap” outside the hypothesis.
Critiques cited (as given)
Truscott (1998): attention/awareness concepts confused; no proof awareness is necessary. Tomlin & Villa (1994): detection without awareness. Carroll (2001): learners parse before attending (“Krashen got it backwards”). Ahn (2014): methodological problems in eye-tracking/think-aloud work.
Jordan’s conclusion
Most L2 learning is implicit; use analytic syllabuses (strong TBLT, Dogme) with reactive explicit focus.
DELTA framing (Claude)
Present the strong/weak distinction; note the hypothesis underpins focus on form, input enhancement and consciousness-raising; and that its experimental support (Leow; Godfroid et al. 2013) is for attention aiding learning, not for awareness being necessary.
Connections
Focus on form vs focus on formS · Reactive focus on form - choose few, global, developmental errors · Interlanguage - teaching changes the rate, not the route