Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:59:17.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MORE ON THE EFFECTS OF EXPLICIT INFORMATION IN INSTRUCTED SLA

A Partial Replication and a Response to Fernández (2008)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

Nicholas Henry ,
Hillah Culman  and
Bill VanPatten
Nicholas Henry
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
Hillah Culman
Affiliation:
Washington, DC
Bill VanPatten*
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
*
*Address correspondence to: Bill VanPatten, Department of Classical and Modern Languages, Texas Tech University, PO Box 42071, Lubbock, TX 79409-2071; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of explicit information (EI) as an independent variable in instructed SLA is largely underresearched. Using the framework of processing instruction, however, a series of offline studies has found no effect for EI (e.g., Benati, 2004; Sanz & Morgan-Short, 2004; VanPatten & Oikkenon, 1996). Fernández (2008) presented two online experiments with mixed results. She found an effect for EI with processing instruction on one target structure (subjunctive in Spanish) but not the other structures (object pronouns and word order in Spanish). Thus, the effects of EI could be related to the target structure or to a processing problem, or both. The present study is a conceptual replication of one of Fernández’s experiments. The target was German accusative case markings on articles with both subject (S)- verb (V)- object (O) and OVS word orders. As shown by Jackson (2007) and LoCoco (1987), learners of German as a second language misinterpret OVS sentences as SVO, ignoring case markings as a cue of who does what to whom. Thus, the goal of the instructional intervention was to push learners to process case markings and word order correctly. The treatment consisted of structured input items (Farley, 2005; Lee & VanPatten, 2003) under two conditions: +/−EI. Following Fernández, the treatment was conducted via computer using e-Prime, and learners’ responses were recorded as they made their way through the items. Whereas Fernández did not find an effect for EI for word order and object pronouns in Spanish, we found an effect for word order and case markings in German: (a) Twice as many learners in the +EI group reached criterion (began to process input strings correctly) compared with the −EI group, and (b) learners in the +EI group began processing word order and case markings sooner than in the −EI group. Even though the processing problem was the same in both Fernández’s and our experiments, we attribute the difference in results to the interaction of particular structures with the processing problem and call for additional research on the role of EI not just in processing instruction but in all formal interventions.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 559 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Alenan, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95–127.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. 207–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culman, H., Henry, N., & VanPatten, B. (2009). The role of explicit information in processing instruction: An on-line study with German accusative case inflections. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 42, 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J & Long, M. H (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, M. R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processing in processing instruction? A response to Bill VanPatten’s “Update.” Language Learning, 52, 805–823.CrossRefGoogle 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. 227–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Farley, A. P. (2005). Structured input. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. (2007). The use and nonuse of semantic information, word order, and case markings during comprehension by German L2 learners. Modern Language Journal, 91, 418–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.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. R., & Lee, J. F. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 119–129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2003). The radical middle: Nativism without Universal Grammar. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 43–62). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulston, C. (1972). Structural pattern drills: A classification. In Allen, H. & Campbell, R. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language (pp. 129–138). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Aptitude, awareness and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 303–358). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C., & VanPatten, B. (1998). On input processing, processing instruction, and the nature of replication tasks: A response to Salaberry. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, B. (1989). An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. Modern Language Journal, 73, 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar instruction for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 433–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing the content of input processing and processing instruction: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning, 52, 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2007a). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2007b). Some thoughts on the future of research on input enhancement. In Gascoigne, C. (Ed.), Assessing the impact of input enhancement in second language education: Evolution, theory, and practice (pp. 169–189). Stillwater, OK: New Forums.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2008). Processing matters in input enhancement. In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input matters (pp. 47–61). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Leeser, M. L. (2007). Theoretical and research considerations underlying classroom practice. In Salaberry, M. R. & Lafford, B. (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp. 55–77). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google 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., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, W. (2004a). The nature of processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2004b). Processing instruction and French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to classroom practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar