Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction

Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 245-259

  Sanz, Cristina ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646043687     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410610195     Document Type: Chapter

References (33)

1. Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R.Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
2. Brandl, K.K. (1995), Strong and weak students' preferences for error feedback options and responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 194-211.
3. Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
4. Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
5. de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249-276.
6. Doughty, C. (1998). Keynote address at The Second Language Research Forum. Honoloulu: The University of Hawaii at Manoa.
7. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C.Doughty and J.Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289-318.
9. Leeman, J. (2000). Towards a new classification of input: An empirical study of the effect of recasts, negative evidence, and enhanced salience of L2 development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
10. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based learning. In G.Crookes & S.Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
11. McCarthy, B. (1996). Fully integrated CALL: Mission accomplished. ReCALL 8, 17-34.
12. McEnery, T., Baker, J.P., & Wilson, A. (1995). A statistical analysis of corpus based computer vs. traditional human teaching methods of part of speech analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8, 259-274.
13. Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal 77, 330-339.
14. Nagata, N., & Swisher, M.V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on SLA. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 336-347
15. 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.
16. Rosa, E. (1999). A cognitive approach to task-based research: Explicitness, awareness and L2 development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
17. Rosa, E., & O'Neill, M. (1998). Effects of stress and location on acoustic salience at the initial steps of Spanish L2 input processing. Spanish Applied Linguistics. 2, 24-52.
18. Rosa, E., & O'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness:Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.
19. Sanz, C. (1994). Task, mode and the effects of input-based explicit instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
20. Sanz, C. (1997). Experimental tasks in SLA research: Amount of production, modality, memory, and production processes. In A.T.Pérez-Lerroux & W. R.Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish:Vol. 2. Production, processing, and comprehension (pp. 41-56). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
21. Sanz, C. (2000). Implementing LIBRA for the design of experimental research in SLA Language.. Learning and Technology Millennial 13, 27-31.
22. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (in press). Positive Evidence vs. Explicit Rule Presentation and Explicit Negative Feedback: A Computer-Assisted Study. Language Learning.
23. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P.M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205-224.
24. Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 11, 385-395.
25. VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar instruction for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 433-450.
26. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
27. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803.
28. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
29. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
30. VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F.Eckman, D.Highland, P.Lee, J.Mileham & R.Rutkowski (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Warden, C. A. (1995). Expert system impact on writing errors in Taiwanese business English classes. CALL Journal 6, 22-29.
32. White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133-161.
33. Yang, J.C., & Akahori, K. (1999). An evaluation of Japanese CALL systems on the WWW comparing a freely input approach with multiple selection. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12, 59-79.