Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T13:02:33.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2010

Robert DeKeyser
By
Ronald P. Leow
Robert DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Ronald P. Leow
Affiliation:
Georgetown University USA
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The role of input is undoubtedly crucial in the process of second/foreign language (L2) learning. Input may be defined as the L2 data (form-based and/or meaning-based) that learners receive either in the formal classroom or in a naturalistic setting. Indeed, how L2 input is presented to L2 learners in the classroom and its effects on the processes learners employ to interact with the input (input processing) have been the focus of several strands of second language acquisition (SLA) studies conducted within a psycholinguistic framework. The theoretical underpinnings of most of these psycholinguistic studies appear to include some role for attention (and possibly awareness) in the processing of L2 grammatical or linguistic data in adult learners' L2 development (e.g., Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990, 1993, 1995, 2001; Tomlin & Villa, 1994; VanPatten, 2004).

The term practice has several connotations (see DeKeyser, this volume for an elaborated discussion of this term in several fields of inquiry) in both the applied linguistics and cognitive psychology literatures. In applied linguistics, the notion of pedagogical practice in the typical classroom assumes some form of performance by learners in response to L2 grammatical input they receive in this setting, which may be provided prior to or during practice. In addition, the L2 input is usually manipulated in some form by the teacher. For example, learners may be exposed to L2 that has been carefully selected and manipulated by the teacher to highlight some linguistic data and may be requested to interact with it in several ways, such as selecting options related to the linguistic data in the input, performing a task, and so forth.

Type
Chapter
Information
Practice in a Second Language
Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
 , pp. 21 - 50
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.) Attention & awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative: An experiment in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berry, D. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of complex tasks. In Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 147–64). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language acquisition. Language Learning, 28, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of linguistic knowledge in second language use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1990). The competence of processing: Classifying theories of second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 635–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. A., & Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, T. H., & Curran, T. (1994). Cognitive factors in learning about structured sequences: Applications to syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 205–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, A. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308–23.Google Scholar
Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production. Language Learning, 46, 613–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, M., Robinson, P., & Harrrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's “Processing instruction: An update.” Language Learning, 52, 805–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of implicit and explicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994a). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79–114). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994b). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. P. (2001a). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. P. (2001b). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5, 57–93.Google Scholar
Farley, A. P. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (1989). Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partially artificial input. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 49–73). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. & Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Guest editors' introduction. In Hulstijn, J. H. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), AILA Review: Consciousness and second language learning: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues in language learning and teaching, 11, 5–10.
Izumi, S., (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. and Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergammon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45–77). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (2002). The incidental acquisition of Spanish: Future tense morphology through reading in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F. & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1998a). Toward operationalizing the process of attention: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1998b). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners' L2 development in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 82, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1999). The role of attention in second/foreign language classroom research: Methodological issues. In Martínez-Gil, F. & Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (Eds.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics: Papers from the 2nd. Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 60–71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware vs. unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2001a). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2001b). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2?: An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., Egi, T., Nuevo, A-M., & Tsai, Y. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners' comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13, 93–108.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–67). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Implicit and explicit processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 277–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 330–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 522–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997a). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997b). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, E. & Leow, R. P. (2004a). Computerized task-based instruction in the L2 classroom: The effects of explicitness and type of feedback on L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 192–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, E. & Leow, R. P. (2004b). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, E. & O'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rott, S. (1999). Relationships between the process of reading, word inferencing, and incidental vocabulary acquisition. In Lee, J. & Valdman, A. (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 255–82). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language practice. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit vs.explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. W. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report #9), (pp. 1–63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension vs. acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 17, 118–36.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seildlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. Widdowson (pp. 125–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning: Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, A. M. (1964). Verbal cues, language, and meaning in selective attention. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 533–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing the content of input processing and processing instruction research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, & Harrington. Language Learning, 52, 825–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., Mileham, J., & Weber, R. Rutkowski (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 87–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2004a). The nature of processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2004b). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187–205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×