More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA: A partial replication and a response to Fernández (2008)

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 559-575

  Henry, Nicholas ^a   Culman, Hillah ^b   Vanpatten, Bill ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 71749119194     PISSN: 02722631     EISSN: 14701545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0272263109990027     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Alenan, 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 Hawai'i at Manoa.
2. Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and outputbased instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127.
3. Benati, A. (2004). 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: Erlbaum.
4. Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaningoutput instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-93.
5. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
6. Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
7. Culman, H., Henry, N., & VanPatten, B. (2009). The role of explicit information in processing instruction: An on-line study with German accusative case inflections. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 42, 20-32.
8. DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.
9. DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, M. R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processing in processing instruction? A response to Bill VanPatten's "Update." Language Learning, 52, 805-823.
10. Farley, A. P. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227-239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Farley, A. P. (2005). Structured input. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277-305.
13. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129-140.
14. Jackson, C. (2007). The use and nonuse of semantic information, word order, and case markings during comprehension by German L2 learners. Modern Language Journal, 91, 418-432.
15. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.
16. Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17. Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
18. LoCoco, V. (1987). Learner comprehension of oral and written sentences in German and Spanish: The importance of word order. In B. VanPatten, T. R. Dvorak, & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 119-129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
19. O'Grady, W. (2003). The radical middle: Nativism without Universal Grammar. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 43-62). Oxford: Blackwell.
20. Paulston, C. (1972). Structural pattern drills: A classification. In H. Allen & R. Campbell (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language (pp. 129-138). New York: McGraw-Hill.
21. Robinson, P. (1995). Aptitude, awareness and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 303-358). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
22. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
23. Sanz, C., & VanPatten, B. (1998). On input processing, processing instruction, and the nature of replication tasks: A response to Salaberry. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 263-273.
24. Scott, B. (1989). An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. Modern Language Journal, 73, 14-22.
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. Westport, CT: Ablex.
27. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing the content of input processing and processing instruction: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning, 52, 825-831.
28. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. VanPatten, B. (2007 a). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 115-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. VanPatten, B. (2007 b). Some thoughts on the future of research on input enhancement. In C. Gascoigne (Ed.), Assessing the impact of input enhancement in second language education: Evolution, theory, and practice (pp. 169-189). Stillwater, OK: New Forums.
31. VanPatten, B. (2008). Processing matters in input enhancement. In T. Piske & M. Young- Scholten (Eds.), Input matters (pp. 47-61). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
32. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
33. VanPatten, B., & Leeser, M. L. (2007). Theoretical and research considerations underlying classroom practice. In M. R. Salaberry & B. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp. 55-77). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
34. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
35. VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97-118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Wong, W. (2004 a). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Wong, W. (2004 b). Processing instruction and French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to classroom practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.