Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:49:48.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explicit Instruction and Input Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Bill VanPatten  and
Teresa Cadierno
Bill VanPatten
Affiliation:
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Teresa Cadierno
Affiliation:
University of Aarhus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we describe an experiment in explicit instruction that compares traditional form-focused instruction and what we call processing instruction. Traditional instruction involves explanation and output practice of a grammatical point. Processing instruction involves explanation and practice/experience processing input data, taking learner strategies in input processing as the starting point for determining what explicit instruction should look like. Pretest and posttest measures involving both a sentence-level interpretation (comprehension) task and a sentence-level production task were submitted to an analysis of variance. Results reveal significant gains in both comprehension and production for subjects who experienced processing instruction. For those experiencing traditional instruction, significant gains were made in production only.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 225 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E., MacWhinney, B.. Caselli, C., Devescovi, A., Natale, F., & Venza, V. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (1992). Explicit instruction in grammar: A comparison of input based and output based instruction in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly, 8, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, N. (1986). The problem with grammar What kind can the language learner use? The Modern Language Journal, 70, 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1982). From theory to practice. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, B. (Eds.), On TESOL '81 (pp. 129–139). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1989). How do learners resolve linguistic conflicts? In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 183–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (1989). Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partly artificial input. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Interlingual processing (pp. 49–73). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorre, M., Dorwick, T., Higgs, T., VanPatten, B., Ferrán, F., & Lusetti, W. (1985). Puntos de partida. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1987). Morphological factors influencing pronominal reference assignment by learners of Spanish. In Morgan, T. A., Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (Eds.), Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp. 221–232). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
LoCoco, V. (1987). Learner comprehension of oral and written sentences in German and Spanish: The importance of word order. In VanPatten, B., Dvorak, T., & Lee, J. F. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 119–129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nam, E. (1974, March). Child and adult perceptual strategies in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the TESOL Annual Meeting, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (1985). Language segmentation: Operating principles for the perception and analysis of language. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1029–1067). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1987). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. In Pfaff, C. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 143–168). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, R. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension vs. acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. Modern Language Journal, 75, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1984). Learners' comprehension of clitic pronouns: More evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistics, 1, 57–67.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1992). Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching: Part 2. The ADFL Bulletin, 23, 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (in press). Input processing and second language acquisition: On the relationship between form and meaning. Festschrift for Tracy David Terrell. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (in press). Second language acquisition as input processing: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Lee, J. F., Ballman, T. L. & Dvorak, T. (1992). ¿Sabias que…? New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar