Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input

Language Learning

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 507-566

  Marsden, Emma ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746828220     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: 14679922     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00375.x     Document Type: Article

References (100)

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, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press.
2. Allen, L. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.
3. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Language Learning, 50(Suppl. 1).
4. Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127.
5. Benati, A. (2004a). The effects of Processing Instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13, 67-80.
6. Benati, A. (2004b). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Benati, A. (2005). The effects of Processing Instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-based output instruction on the acquisition of English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 87-113.
8. Bernhardt, E. (1987). Cognitive processes in L2: an examination of reading behaviours. In J. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in second language learning: Focus on the classroom (pp. 35-51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
9. Blau, E. (1990). The effect of syntax, speed and pauses on listening comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 746-753.
10. Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177-192.
11. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1997). Quantitative data analysis for SPSS with Windows. London: Routledge.
12. Buck, M. (2000). Procesamiento del lenguaje y adquisición de una segunda lengua. Un estudio de la adquisición de un punto gramatical en ingles par hispanohablantes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
13. Burstall, C. (1975). French in the primary school: The British experiment. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 388-402.
14. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
15. Carr, T., & Curran, T. (1994). Cognitive factors in learning about structured sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 205-230.
16. Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
17. Carroll, S. (2004). Some comments on input processing and processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 293-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1-14.
19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Collentine, J. (2004). Commentary: Where PI research has been and where it should be going. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 169-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Corder, S. (1978). Language-learner language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 71-93). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
22. Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25-58.
23. De Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205-234.
24. DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
25. DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
26. DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, M., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction: A commentary on Bill VanPatten's "Processing Instruction: Update." Language Learning, 52, 805-823.
27. DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642.
28. Dienes, Z., Broadbent, D., & Berry, D. (1991). Implicit and explicit knowledge bases in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 875-887.
29. Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction makes a difference: Evidence from an empirical study on relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
30. Doughty, C. (2004). Commentary: When PI is focus on form it is very, very good, but when it is focus on forms. . . . In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 257-272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams, (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-139). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
32. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-262). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
33. Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroom-oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64-80.
34. Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223-236.
35. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
36. Farley, A. (2001). The effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 57-94.
37. Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage.
38. Harley, B. (1992). Patterns of second language development in French immersion. French Language Studies, 2, 159-183.
39. Harrington, M. (2004). Commentary: Input Processing as a theory of processing input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 79-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In R.W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 64-88). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
41. Henning, G. (1983). Oral proficiency testing: Comparative validities of interview, imitation, and completion methods. Language Learning, 33, 315-332.
42. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
43. Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183-216). Honolulu, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press.
44. Lauer, P., Streby, W., & Battig, W. (1976). The effects of alphabetic organization and delayed retention of semantically similar words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 182-189.
45. Lee, J. (2004). On the generalizability, limits, and potential future directions of Processing Instruction research. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 311-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Lee, J., Cadierno, T., Glass, W., & VanPatten, B. (1997). The effects of lexical and grammatical cues on processing tense in second language input. Applied Language Learning, 8, 1-23.
47. Lee, T., & Magill, R. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 730-746.
48. Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 217-258). Honolulu, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press.
49. Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
50. Lightbown, P. (1991). What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson et al. (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A Commemorative volume for Claus Faerch. London: Multilingual Matters.
51. Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (Vol. 1, pp. 123-167). London: Multilingual Matters.
53. Mangubhai, F. (1991). The processing behaviours of adult second language learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 12, 268-297.
54. Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19, 144-161.
55. Marsden, E. (2004). Teaching and learning of French verb inflections: A classroom experiment using Processing Instruction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southampton, UK.
56. Mathews, R. C., Buss, R. R., Stanley, W. B., Blanchard-Fields, F., Cho, J.-R., & Druhan, B. (1989). The role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1083-1100.
57. Mitchell, R., & Dickson, P. (1997). Progression in foreign language learning (Centre for Language in Education Occasional Paper 45). University of Southampton, UK.
58. Musumeci, D. (1989). The ability of second language learners to assign tense at the sentence level: A cross-linguistic study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
59. Myles, F. (1995). Interaction between linguistic theory and language processing in SLA. Second Language Research, 11, 235-266.
60. Myles, F. (2003). The early development of L2 narratives: A longitudinal study. Marges Linguistiques, 5, 40-55. Retrieved may 2006 from http://www.marges-linguistiques.com
61. Myles, F. (2005). The emergence of morpho-syntactic structure in French L2. In J. Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a Foreign Language (pp. 88-113). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
62. Naiman, N. (1974). The use of elicited imitation in second language acquisition research. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 2, 1-37.
63. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
64. Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. (1991). Phonological short-term memory and foreign-language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 331-347.
65. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
66. Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery (2nd ed.). London: Hutchinson.
67. Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103-133.
68. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
69. Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223-247.
70. Rosa, E., & O'Neill, M. (1998). Effects of stress and location on acoustic salience at the initial stages of Spanish L2 input processing. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 24-52.
71. Rule, S. & Marsden, E. (2006). The acquisition of functional categories in early French L2 grammars: the use of finite and non-finite verbs in negative contexts. Second Language Research, 22, 188-218.
72. Salaberry, M. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
73. Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in Processing Instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241-255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
74. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
75. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
76. Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-165.
77. Shook, D. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93.
78. Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
79. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205-224.
80. Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-204.
81. Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. London: Multilingual Matters.
82. Trahey, M. (1996). Positive evidence in second language acquisition: Some long-term effects. Second Language Research, 12, 111-139.
83. Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204.
84. Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103-135.
85. Truscott, J. (2004). The effectiveness of grammar instruction: Analysis of a meta-analysis. English Teaching and Learning, 28(3), 17-29.
86. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
87. VanPatten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in second language acquisition: Terms, linguistic features and research methodologies. In J. Hulstijn & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Consciousness in second language learning, AILA Review 11, 27-36.
88. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
89. VanPatten, B. (2002a). Processing Instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803.
90. VanPatten, B. (2002b). Processing the content of Input-Processing and Processing Instruction research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson and Harrington. Language Learning, 54, 825-831.
91. VanPatten, B. (Ed.) (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
92. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-241.
93. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
94. VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Rutowski Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
95. Williams, J. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1-48.
96. Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
97. Williams, J. N. (2004). Implicit learning of form-meaning connections. In J. Williams, B. VanPatten, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form meaning connections in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
98. Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 269-304.
99. Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345-368.
100. Wong, W. (2004). The nature of Processing Instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33-63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.