CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 745EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningMemory Processes and Influences

Attention, Memory, and the “Noticing” Hypothesis

Robinson, Peter·1995·Language Learning
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Schmidt (1990) claimed that consciousness, in the sense of awareness of the form of input at the level of “noticing”, is necessary to subsequent second language acquisition (SLA). This claim runs counter to Krashen's (1981) dualsystem hypothesis that SLA largely results from an unconscious “acquisition” system, the contribution of the conscious “learning” system to SLA being limited and peripheral. Important to a theory of SLA that allows a central role to the act of noticing is a specification of the nature of the attentional mechanisms involved, and of their relationship to current models of the organization of memory. With this in mind the present paper reviews current research into the nature of attention and memory and proposes a model of the relationship between them during SLA that, it is argued, is complementary to Schmidt's noticing hypothesis and oppositional to the dual‐system hypothesis of Krashen. In light of this model, I argue that differential performance on implicit and explicit learning and memory experiments is caused by differences in the consciously regulated processing demands of training tasks and not by the activation of consciously and unconsciously accessed systems. I also argue that the attentional demands of pedagogical tasks and individual differences in memory and attentional capacity both affect the extent of noticing, thereby directly influencing SLA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research on L2 acquisition has focused on noticing, differentiating between detection, awareness, and understanding.

    “This research has tended to focus on the construct of noticing, differentiating between noticing at the level of detection, awareness, and understanding (Leow, 2015; Robinson, 1995).”

    From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Robinson, 1995

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, P.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Robinson, Peter
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-06
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
283-331
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x
OpenAlex
W2003322067
Cited by
745
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 49
FWCI
57.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 4166 d)
Locations
Language Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
noticing hypothesis, second language acquisition, attention, memory, implicit learning, explicit learning, consciousness, attentional capacity, individual differences, teaching tasks, Krashen

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review