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

This study explores the question of whether or not learners can consciously attend to both form and meaning when processing input. An experimental procedure is presented in which three levels of learners in four groups were asked to process information under four different conditions: attention to meaning alone; simultaneous attention to meaning and an important lexical item; simultaneous attention to meaning and a grammatical functor; and simultaneous attention to meaning and a verb form. Results suggest that learners, in particular early stage learners, have great difficulty in attending to both form and content. These results raise important questions for current discussions of the role of consciousness in input processing.

In this article I review processing instruction (PI), first introduced in VanPatten and Cadierno (1993). I outline a model of input processing, then describe the nature of PI itself, and follow this with a description of research to date on PI. I also review research that offers counterevidence to the findings of my own and others’ research and argue that some of these studies can be considered not as contradictory, but as complementary, to the research on PI, whereas some of the other studies contain drawbacks in design and procedure that merit close scrutiny.

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/posttest 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.For some time, the language teaching profession has been exploring the role of formal instruction in grammar (for overviews, see, e.g., Ellis, 1990; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, chap. 8; June 1993 issue of Studies in Second Language Learning, 15: 2). One particular focus of the discussion surrounding formal instruction has been the contribution that explicit information provides in the acquisition process. By explicit information, we mean explanation about properties of language provided by We would like to thank the Research Board of the University of Illinois for its financial support in conducting the present study. We would also like to thank the various anonymous reviewers who made important comments on an earlier version of this paper.

No abstract

No abstract

No 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.