How effective are affective activities? Relative benefits of two types of structured input activities as part of a computer-delivered lesson on the Spanish subjunctive

Language Teaching Research

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 393-414

  Henshaw, Florencia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

acquisition of subjunctive; CALL; grammar instruction; Processing Instruction; structured input activities; task essentialness

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864059279     PISSN: 13621688     EISSN: 14770954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1362168812436919     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Benati A.Processing Instruction: Theory, research and commentary. VanPatten B., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004:207-226.
2. Benati A.The effects of Processing Instruction, traditional instruction, and meaningful-based output instruction on the acquisition of the English past tense.Language Teaching Research. 2005;9:67-93.
3. Bley-Vroman R.Hypothesis testing in second language acquisition theory.Language Learning. 2006;36:353-76.
4. Cadierno T.Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense.Modern Language Journal. 1995;19:179-93.
5. Cheng A.The effects of Processing Instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar.Hispania. 2002;85:308-23.
6. Cheng A.Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary. VanPatten B., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004:119-42.
7. Collentine J.Processing Instruction and the subjunctive.Hispania. 1998;81:576-87.
8. Farley A.Authentic Processing Instruction and the Spanish subjunctive.Hispania. 2001a;84:289-99.
9. Farley A.Processing Instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study.Studies in Applied Linguistics. 2001b;5:57-93.
10. Farley A.Processing Instruction: Theory, research and commentary. VanPatten B., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004:227-40.
11. Farley A.Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. New York: McGraw Hill; 2005:.
12. Fernandez C.Reexamining the role of explicit information in Processing Instruction.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2008;30:277-305.
13. Loschky L.,Bley-Vroman R.Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Crookes G.Gass S., ed. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters; 1993:123-67.
14. Marsden E.Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of Processing Instruction and enriched input.Language Learning. 2006;56:507-66.
15. Morgan-Short K.,Wood Bowden H.Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on linguistic development.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2006;28:31-65.
16. Sanz C.,Morgan-Short K.Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study.Language Learning. 2004;54:35-78.
17. Schmidt R.Cognition and second language instruction. Robinson P.J., ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001:3-32.
18. Tomasello M.,Herron C.Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1989;11:385-95.
19. VanPatten B.Processing instruction: An update.Language Learning. 2002;52:755-803.
20. VanPatten B.Mind and context in adult second language acquisition. Sanz C., ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2005:267-81.
21. VanPatten B.,Cadierno T.Explicit instruction and input processing.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1993;15:225-43.
22. VanPatten B.,Oikkenon S.Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1996;18:495-510.
23. VanPatten B.,Wong W.Processing Instruction: Theory, research and commentary. VanPatten B., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004:97-118.
24. Wong W.Processing Instruction: Theory, research and commentary. VanPatten B., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004:187-206.