Explicit Instruction and Input Processing

Abstract

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.

Development of Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence: Input- and Output-based Instruction in the Zone of Proximal Development

“…The CIG outperformed the two output-based groups (IOG & COG) confirming the claims made by Ellis (1997) and VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) who proposed "that it is the manipulation of input (how learners perceive and process input) rather than output (how learners produce language output) that is more likely to result in the integration of intake into learners" implicit/declarative knowledge".…”

The effects of re-exposure to instruction and the use of discourse-level interpretation tasks on processing instruction and the Japanese passive

“…It has addressed the question of whether the effects of processing instruction endure, diminish or disappear over time. Overall the results of these studies showed that there are short-term durative effects for sentence-level tasks (VanPatten and Cadierno 1993;Cadierno 1995;Benati, 2001Benati, , 2004Farley, 2001Farley, , 2004Cheng 2002;Morgan-Short 2006;Lee and Benati 2007). Learners in processing instruction groups tend to maintain their improved performance (from the pre-test to the immediate post-test) from immediate post-tests to delayed post-tests up to one month from the original instructional exposure.…”

Question Generation for Language Learning: From ensuring texts are read to supporting learning

“…We already saw in our introduction in section 1 that both meaning and form play important roles in SLA. Pushing this discussion one step further, work in the Input Processing paradigm ( VanPatten and Cadierno, 1993), based on Krashen's (1977) input hypothesis, provides several relevant studies showing that "learners process input for meaning before they process it for form" (VanPatten, 1990;Wong, 2001). However, Norris and Ortega (2000) argued that simultaneously directing the learner's attention to form and meaning in the input does not hinder L2 development or reading comprehension.…”