The concept of input to the language learner is examined with reference to some current theorizing about language processing and the idea of modular systems of knowledge. The question of what this can tell us about the actions taken by teachers and textbook writers is addressed specifically with regard to manipulating, or "enhancing," the input ideally so that it will affect learner knowledge and thereby learner behavior. The logic of the argumentation is that, in exposing the learner to the second language, we are engaging a whole battery of different processing mechanisms. Input enhancement research and the conclusions drawn from it have to be set within the context of a modular view of language and language learning.

This paper re-analyses the notion of consciousness raising in language learning. The process by which language input becomes salient to the learner is termed 'input enhancement'. This process can come about as a result of deliberate manipulation, or it can be the natural outcome of some internal learning strategy. It can vary quantitatively and qualitatively, not necessarily involving conscious analysis of rules. Externally induced salience may not necessarily be registered by the learner and even when it is registered, it may not affect the learning mechanisms per se. Certain inferences are made about the interpretation of learner performance and ways of measuring it.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Clinical trials involving patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) continue to try to identify disease‐modifying treatments. Although trials are designed to meet regulatory and registration requirements, many do not measure outcomes of the disease most relevant to key stakeholders. Methods A systematic review sought research that elicited information from people with AD, their caregivers, and health‐care professionals on which outcomes of the disease were important. Studies published in any language between 2008 and 2017 were included. Results Participants in 34 studies described 32 outcomes of AD. These included clinical (memory, mental health), practical (ability to undertake activities of daily living, access to health information), and personal (desire for patient autonomy, maintenance of identity) outcomes of the disease. Discussion Evidence elicited directly from the people most affected by AD reveals a range of disease outcomes that are relevant to them but are not commonly captured in clinical trials of new treatments.