Explanation versus Structured Input in Processing Instruction

Abstract

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.

Comparing the Effectiveness of Processing Instruction and Production-Based Instruction on L2 Grammar Learning: The Role of Explicit Information

“…Supporting the results of VanPatten and Cadierno's (1993) study, this finding suggests that PI as a direct intervention, as in VanPatten's model, can provide a way for "better processing of input and knowledge that is apparently also available for production" (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993, p. 54) and an "opportunity to interpret the meaning-form relationship correctly without any practice in producing the targeted form or structure" (Lee & Benati, 2009, p. 75). In other words, as in the earlier studies (e.g., VanPatten & Oikkenon, 1996, among many others), when PI conditions with and without EI were compared on the production task, they performed equally well over time. That is, it was the structured input that helped learners to produce the targeted form, not the EI.…”

“…All these studies found different results from those of VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996); that is, they reported a superior effect of the PI+EI group over PI-EI, thereby revealing a significant effect for EI, as well as that of structured input, in PI. In these studies, EI was found to play a facilitative role in PI, and therefore it was suggested to be beneficial in PI for different language features; this, however, depends on the nature of the tasks and the associated processing problem (Farley, 2004a;Fernandez, 2008;Henry et al, 2009).…”

“…According to their results, both the PI+EI and PI-EI groups not only performed equally well over time but also scored better than the EI-only group on the interpretation and production tasks, which suggests that it is structured input, not EI, that helps learners to acquire Spanish clitic object pronouns. A large body of studies have replicated VanPatten and Oikkenon's (1996) research on different grammatical structures such as the use of de with avoir in French (Wong, 2004b), Italian future tense (Benati, 2004a), gender agreement in Italian (Benati 2004b), Spanish direct object pronouns (Fernandez, 2008;Sanz, 2004;Sanz & MorganShort, 2004;VanPatten & Borst, 2012;VanPatten, Collopy, Price, Borst, & Qualin, 2013), Russian nominative/accusative case marking on nouns (VanPatten et al, 2013), and idiom learning in second language (Kim & Nam, 2017). All these studies found that EI is not a necessary component for the greater effectiveness of PI, because whether PI was with or without EI, the groups did not outperform one another on both interpretation and production tasks.…”

“…Third, PI+EI and PI-EI groups have been compared (e.g., Sanz & MorganShort, 2004;VanPatten & Oikkenon, 1996), and EI was not found to be as useful as structured input activities in PI. However, regarding the role of EI in PBI, given that "dismissing the potential of EI without further qualification may be too hasty" (DeKeyser & Botana, 2015, p. 296), the comparison of PBI groups (PBI+EI vs. PBI-EI) should not be ignored.…”

Replication in Second Language Research: Narrative and Systematic Reviews and Recommendations for the Field

“…Further interconnectedness was found in two lines of research. First, Ellis and Sagarra (2011) served both as an initial study for the Ellis et al (2014) replication and was itself a replication of Ellis and Sagarra (2010), and thus it was coded as both a replication and an initial study; and second, VanPatten and Cadierno (1993a) served as an initial study for DeKeyser and Sokalski (1996) and for VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996), and so it was coded twice in its capacity as an initial study. Overall, though, the interconnectedness of groups of studies was minimal, given that from the 67 self-labeled replications, only four were associated with more than one initial study, only one continuing line of replications was identified, and only one study was replicated more than once.…”