Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-v4w92 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-21T12:35:37.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REEXAMINING THE ROLE OF EXPLICIT INFORMATION IN PROCESSING INSTRUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2008

Claudia Fernández
Claudia Fernández*
Affiliation:
DePaul University
*
Claudia Fernández, Department of Modern Languages, DePaul University, 802 W Belden Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614; email: cfernan2@depaul.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study sought to observe, through online treatments, whether explicit information assists acquisition in a way that has not been measured in previous processing instruction (PI) studies. Two experiments examined learners' behavior while they processed Spanish sentences with object-verb-subject (OVS) word order and Spanish subjunctive under two treatments: with explicit information (the PI group) and without explicit information (the structured input [SI] group). Participants in both groups worked individually with a computer and processed a series of 30 SI items. They received feedback right after each response, and both accuracy and response time were recorded. It was expected that learners in the PI group would start to process both of the linguistic targets sooner in the sequence of input items and would submit their responses faster than learners in the SI group, because explicit information in the PI treatment would help learners notice the target items early in the series. The results showed no difference between the SI group and the PI group when processing OVS sentences, but the PI group processed subjunctive forms sooner and faster than the SI group. The results suggest that the benefits of explicit information might depend on the nature of the task and the processing problem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 277 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (Tech. Rep. No. 9; pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Allen, L.Q. (2000). Form-meaning connection 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. 207–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. (1990). Indicativo y subjuntivo [Indicative and subjunctive]. Madrid: Taurus.Google Scholar
Collentine, J.G. (1993). The development of complex syntax and the selection of mood by foreign language learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Collentine, J.G. (1995). The development of complex syntax and mood selection abilities by intermediate-level learners of Spanish. Hispania, 78, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collentine, J.G. (1997). Irregular verbs and noticing the Spanish subjunctive. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 3–23.Google Scholar
de Graaff, R. (1997). Differential effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Leiden, The Netherlands: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.Google 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
Doughty, C.J. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002a). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002b). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign curriculum. In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 87, 242–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. (2000). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction on L2 acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Farley, A. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. (2004a). 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. (2004b). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143–168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J.H. & de 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, 97–113.Google Scholar
Kubota, M. (1996). The effects of instruction plus feedback on Japanese university students of EFL: A pilot study. Bulletin of Chofu Gakuen Women's Junior College, 18, 59–95. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397641)Google Scholar
Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Master, P. (1994). The effect of systematic instruction on learning the English article system. In Odlin, T. (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 229–252). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google 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, 27–67.Google Scholar
Rosa, E. & Leow, R. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 192–216.CrossRefGoogle 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
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
Scott, V.M. (1989). An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. Modern Language Journal, 72, 14–22.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 435–450.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–244.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, K. (2006). Sintaxis y morfología de la lengua española [Syntax and morphology of the Spanish language]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Williams, J. & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). New York: Cambridge University Press.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: 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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar