Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T02:29:07.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PROCESSING INSTRUCTION AND MEANINGFUL OUTPUT-BASED INSTRUCTION:: Effects on Second Language Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2006

Kara Morgan-Short  and
Harriet Wood Bowden
Kara Morgan-Short
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Harriet Wood Bowden
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of meaningful input- and output-based practice on SLA. First-semester Spanish students (n = 45) were assigned to processing instruction, meaningful output-based instruction, or control groups. Experimental groups received the same input in instruction but received meaningful practice that was input or output based. Both experimental groups showed significant gains on immediate and delayed interpretation and production tasks. Repeated-measures analyses of variance showed that overall, for interpretation, both experimental groups outperformed the control group. For production, only the meaningful output-based group outperformed the control group. These results suggest that not only input-based but also output-based instruction can lead to linguistic development.We thank Ron Leow, Alison Mackey, and Cristina Sanz for their continual support and valuable input throughout the various phases of this research and for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Likewise, we express our gratitude to Bill VanPatten and the various anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. We also thank the Linguistics Department for the use of its laboratory and equipment during data collection and Ru San Chen for assistance with statistical analyses. Special thanks to Gorky Cruz and Cristina Sanz for the use of digital photographs. Any errors or omissions are ours alone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 31 - 65
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Allen, L.Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative: An experiment in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69–84.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.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaningful-based output instruction on the acquisition of English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–93.Google Scholar
Bowden, H.W. & Morgan-Short, K. (2004, May). Attention, instructional conditions, and second language development. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. London: Longman.
Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction in grammar: A comparison of input based and output based instruction in second language acquisition. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 3889A–3890A.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 19, 179–193.Google Scholar
Cheng, A.C. (1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: The acquisition of Spanish ser and estar. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts Internationsl, 56, 3485A–3486A.Google Scholar
Cheng, A.C. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308–323.Google Scholar
Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576–587.Google Scholar
Collentine, J. (2002). On the acquisition of the subjunctive and authentic processing instruction: A response to Farley. Hispania, 85, 879–888.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–555.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R.M., Salaberry, M.R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's “Processing instruction: An update.” Language Learning, 52, 805–823.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.M. & Sokalski, K.J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practices. Language Learning, 46, 613–642.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 559–582.Google Scholar
Farley, A.P. (2001a). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–299.Google 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. (2002). Processing instruction, communicative value, and ecological validity: A response to Collentine's defense. Hispania, 85, 889–895.Google Scholar
Farley, A.P. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143–168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.Google Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 74, 440–464.Google Scholar
Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 23–40.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communication classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Salaberry, M.R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Journal, 53, 422–451.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. & VanPatten, B. (1998). On input processing, processing instruction, and the nature of replication tasks: A response to M. Rafael Salaberry. Canadian Modern Language Journal, 54, 263–273.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Westport, CT: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004a). Input and output in establishing form-meaning connections. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 29–47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. (2004b). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993b). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Lee, J., & Ballman, T. (2000). ¿Sabías que…? Beginning Spanish ( 3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
VanPatten, B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Rutkowski (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.