online education research, skripsi, tesis, disertasi, penelitian,action research, statistical, sampling, research proposal, qualitative research,quantitative research,sampling methods

There are two outstanding models cognitive perspectives of SLA: Attention-Processing Model, and Implicit and Explicit Models (Brown 2002).

1.    Attention-Processing Model
    A more sound heuristic for conceptualizing the language acquisition process, one that did indeed avoid any direct appeal to a conscious continuum, was proposed by Barry McLaughlin and his colleagues. Their model juxtaposes processing mechanisms controlled and automatic and categories of attention.
    Controlled processes are capacity limited and temporary, and automatic processes are a relatively (McLaughlin et al. 1983). We can think of controlled processing as typical of anyone leaning a brand new skill in which only a very few elements of the skill can be retained.
    For example (Brown 2002), when you first learn to play tennis, you can only manage the elements of, say, making contact between ball and racquet, getting the bal over the net, and hitting the ball into the green space on the other side of the net. Everything else about the game is far too complex for your capacity-limited ability.
    Automatic processes, on the other hand, refer to processing in a more accomplished skill, where the “hard drive” of your brain can manage hundreds and thousands of bits of information simultaneously. The automatizing of this multiplicity of data is accomplished by a process of restructuring (McLeod & McLaughlin 1986) in which the components of a task are coordinated, integrated, or reorganized into new units, thereby allowing the old components to be replaced by a more efficient procedure.
    Both ends of this continuum of processing can occur with either focal or peripheral attention to the task at hand; that is, focusing attention either centrally or simply on the periphery. Both focal and peripheral attention to some tasks may unite conscious (Hulsjtin 1990). When you are driving a car, for example, your focal attention may center on cars directly in front of you as you move forward; but you peripheral attention to cars beside you and behind you, to potential hazards, and ofcourse to the other thoughts running through your mind, is all very much within you conscious awareness.
    While many controlled processes are focal, some, like child first language learning or the learning of skills without any instruction, can be peripheral. Similarly, many automatic processes are peripheral, but some can be focal, as in the case of an accomplished pianist performing in a concert or an experienced driver paying particular attention to the road on a foggy night (Brown 2002). It is very important to note that in virtually every act of performing something, focal and peripheral attention actually occur simultaneously, and the question is: What specifically occupies a person’s focal and peripheral attention? So, for example, a very young child who says to a parent “No body don’t like me” is undoubtedly focally attending to conveying emotion, mental anguish, or loneliness, and peripherally attending to words and morphemes that underlie the central meaning. Other factors that garner attention somewhere in between centrally focal and extremely peripheral may be reading the parents’ facial features, mental reality of an uncomfortable incident of rejection, awareness of a sibling overhearing the communication, and even such peripheral nonlinguistic, noncognitive factors as the temperature in the room at the moment, a light in the background, the smell of dinner cooking, or the warmth of the parents’ arms enfolding the child. All of these perceptions, from highly focal to very peripheral, are within the awareness of a child. McLaughlin (1990) noted that the literature in experimental psychology indicates that there is no long-term learning (of new material) without awareness.

2.    Implicit and Explicit Models
    Another set of constructs for conceptualizing the varied processes of second language learning is found in models that make a distinction between explicit and implicit linguistic knowledge (Brown 2002; Ellen Bialystok 199; Rod Ellis 1997). In the explicit category are the facts that a person knows about language and the ability to articulate those facts in some way. Explicit processing signals one’s knowledge about language. Implicit knowledge is information that is automatically and spontaneously used in language tasks. Children implicitly learn phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic rules of language, but do not have access to an explanation, explicitly, of those rules. Implicit processes enable a learner to perform language but not necessarily to cite rules governing the performance.
   
    Bialystok (1978) pointed out that implicit and explicit processing as central to the total act of learning a second language. He equated implicit and explicit with the synonymous terms unanalyzed and analyzed knowledge. Unanalyzed knowledge is the general form in which we know most things without being aware of the structure of that knowledge. On the other hand, learners are overtly aware of the structure of analyzed knowledge. For example, at the unanalyzed extreme of this knowledge dimension, learners have little awareness of language rules, but at the analyzed end, learners can verbalize complex rules governing language.
    These same models feature a distinction between automatic and non-automatic processing, building on McLaughlin’s conception of automaticity. Automaticity refers to the learner’s relative access to the knowledge. Knowledge that can be retrieved easily and quickly is automatic. Knowledge that takes time and effort to retrieve is non-automatic. As was true for the McLaughlin model, both forms of attention can be either analyzed or unanalyzed. An important dimension of this distinction is time. Processing time is a significant factor in second language performance, one that has pedagogical salience in the classroom. The length of tome that a learner takes before oral production performance, for example, can be indicative of the perceived complexity of certain language forms in a task. Mehnert (998) found that planning time had a significant effect on the accuracy and fluency of second language learner’s production.
    The constructs of automaticity/nonoutomaticity and of explicit/implicit knowledge have drawn the attention of numerous researchers over the past decade (Brown 2002). On the other hand arguments were raised about the identification of just what we mean by implicit and explicit (Hulsjtin 1990; Robinson 1994, 1995, 1997).