Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:03:56.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanation versus Structured Input in Processing Instruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Bill VanPatten  and
Soile Oikkenon
Bill VanPatten
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Soile Oikkenon
Affiliation:
Ylöjärvi, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study replicates VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) in an attempt to determine whether or not explicit information given to learners receiving processing instruction is responsible for the beneficial effects of instruction. Fifty-nine subjects were divided into three groups: (1) one receiving processing instruction in object pronouns and word order in Spanish as in VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), (2) another receiving explanation only with no activities or practice, (3) and another receiving only the structured input activities with no explanation. A pretest/post-test assessment was used involving two tests, an interpretation test and a sentence-level production test. Results showed that the beneficial effects of instruction were due to the structured input activities and not to the explicit information (explanation) provided to learners.

Type
Replication Study
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 495 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, A. (1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: The acquisition of Spanish ser and estar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study on relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (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 processes (pp. 49–73). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). Introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1987). Morphological factors influencing pronominal reference assignment by learners of Spanish: Dedicated to Joseph H. Matluck. 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
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Paulston, C. B. (1972). Structural pattern drills. In Allen, H. B. & Campbell, R. N. (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
Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, V. (1989). An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 14–22.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. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P. W., Mileham, J., & Weber, R. R. (Eds.), Second language acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar