The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish

Uludag, Onur; VanPatten, Bill

doi:10.1515/iral-2012-0008

Cited by 26 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Processing instruction is only useful in so far as it deliberately structures input to steer learners away from the lessthanoptimal processing strategies while also considering any corollaries that affect these strategies. As I have noted elsewhere, a number of studies have gone awry in attempting to research PI because the researchers failed to (completely) consider the principles and their corollaries in the con struction of appropriate intervention activities (e.g., Sanz & VanPatten, 1998;Uludag & VanPatten, 2012; see also Wong, 2004).…”

Section: The Nature Of Input Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundations of processing instruction

VanPatten

2015

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews six issues that are key to understanding processing instruction (PI): (1) the distinction between processing and noticing; (2) the na ture of input processing; (3) the nature of language (i.e., what gets acquired); (4) the distinction between knowledge and skill; (5) the explicit/implicit "debate"; and (6) the distinction between method and intervention. The goal of the paper is to clarify misconceptions about the nature of PI and what it purports to effect, thus distinguishing it from other pedagogical interventions such as text enhance ment, recasts, and dictoglosses. In so doing, the paper offers six summary state ments that, together, form the foundations of PI.

show abstract

Section: The Nature Of Input Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundations of processing instruction

VanPatten

2015

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These are meaning-based output instruction (e.g., Benati 2005;Farley 2001a), input-based interventions (e.g., Marsden 2006), dictogloss (Uludag & VanPatten 2012;) and communicative output tasks (Toth 2006). All these studies address the fundamental question of the effectiveness of processing instruction as a type of intervention and take VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) and Cadierno (1995) as their point of departure.…”

Section: Milestone: Pi Is Effective Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The milestones in twenty years of processing instruction research

Lee

2015

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) published the first empirical investigation on the effects of processing instruction just over twenty years ago. This work inspired many, many more in subsequent years and continues to inspire research to this day, as evidenced by the studies gathered in this special edition. The purpose of this paper is to identify the milestones among the many processing instruction studies. Each study marks a significant development in the processing instruction research program.

show abstract

“…The effects of processing instruction have been compared with the effects of meaning-based output instruction in other studies (Lee & Benati, 2007a;Morgan-Short & Bowden, 2006), and with other interventions such as dictogloss (Uludag & VanPatten, 2012;VanPatten et al, 2009). The results of these studies confirmed the effectiveness of processing instruction in improving learners' performance on both interpretation and production sentence-level tests.…”

Section: Studies Measuring the Effects Of Processing Instruction Versmentioning

confidence: 99%

Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research

Benati

2016

SSLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers in the field of instructed second language acquisition have been examining the issue of how learners interact with input by conducting research measuring particular kinds of instructional interventions (input-oriented and meaning-based). These interventions include such things as input flood, textual enhancement and processing instruction. Although the findings are not completely conclusive on whether these instructional interventions have an impact on acquisition, it is clear that we have witnessed a shift in the field from the original question "Does instruction make a difference?" to the more specific question "Does manipulating input make a difference?" In this article, the key classroom-based research conducted to measure the relative effects of different types of enhancement and manipulation is reviewed. Three main research foci are considered: (a) research measuring the effects of saturating the input with the target form (input flood), (b) research measuring the effects of different types of textual enhancements to draw learners' attention to the target form, and (c) research measuring input restructuring to improve interpretation and processing of target forms or structures (processing instruction).

show abstract

The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish

Cited by 26 publications

References 11 publications

Foundations of processing instruction

Foundations of processing instruction

The milestones in twenty years of processing instruction research

Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About