The Experts below are selected from a list of 22482 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alessandro Benati - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Online methods and tasks in research measuring the effects of Processing Instruction
Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 2020Co-Authors: Alessandro BenatiAbstract:Empirical research measuring the effects of Processing Instruction comes largely from offline tasks. This introductory article to the current special issue provides readers with the following: (1) a brief description of Processing Instruction; (2) a short review of previous offline research; (3) a review of more recent online studies measuring real-time sentence comprehension.
-
The effects of motivation on Processing Instruction in the acquisition of Modern Standard Arabic gender agreement
Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 2018Co-Authors: Ayah Farhat, Alessandro BenatiAbstract:Normal 0 false false false EN-GB JA PA The present study investigates the effects of motivation and Processing Instruction on the acquisition of Modern Standard Arabic gender agreement . The role of individual differences (e.g., age, gender, aptitude, language background and working memory) on the positive effects generated by Processing Instruction has been investigated in the last few years. However, no previous research has been conducted measuring the possible effects of motivation on L2 learners exposed to Processing Instruction. In addition, a reasonable question to be addressed within the Processing Instruction research framework is whether its positive effects can be generalized to the acquistion of Modern Standard Arabic. In this experimental study, forty-one native English school-age learners were assigned to two groups: ‘the high motivated group’ ( n =29): and the ‘low motivated group’ ( n =12) . The Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) and the Attitude Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) motivation questionnaires were used to capture different variables that influence motivation in order to create the two different groups (high and low motivated). Both groups received Processing Instruction which lasted for three hours. Interpretation and production sentence level-tasks were used in a pre-test and post-test design to measure Instructional effects. The study also included a delayed post-test administered to the two groups four weeks later. The results indicated that both groups improved equally from pre-tests to post-tests in all assessment measures and they both retained the positive effects of the training in the delayed post-tests. Processing Instruction was proved to be the main factor for the improvement in performance no matter the learner’s level of motivation.
-
Classroom-Oriented Research: Processing Instruction (Findings and Implications).
Language Teaching, 2017Co-Authors: Alessandro BenatiAbstract:This paper firstly presents and examines the pedagogical intervention called Processing Instruction (PI). Secondly, it reviews and discusses the main findings of the empirical research conducted to measure the relative effects of PI. Current research trends within the PI research framework will be outlined. Experimental research investigating the effects of this pedagogical intervention in language teaching, and grammar Instruction in particular, has primarily used listening and reading measures (so-called ‘off-line measures’) to elicit how learners comprehend and process sentences. On-line measurements, such as eye tracking and self-paced reading, have now been incorporated into PI research to measure language Processing more directly. Finally, this paper provides specific guidelines and procedures for teachers on when and how to use PI.
-
Processing Instruction and the Acquisition of Japanese Morphology and Syntax
Theory Research and Pedagogy in Learning and Teaching Japanese Grammar, 2016Co-Authors: Alessandro BenatiAbstract:In this chapter, two experimental classroom studies investigating the relative effects of Processing Instruction on the acquisition of Japanese past tense forms and passive constructions are presented. While research studies on the effects of Processing Instruction have been carried out on different languages and linguistics features, very little research has been conducted in measuring the effects of this pedagogical intervention on the acquisition of Japanese morphology and syntax.
-
Processing Instruction research, theory and practical implications for the learning and teaching of English grammar to Chinese speakers
2015Co-Authors: Alessandro BenatiAbstract:Processing Instruction is a pedagogical intervention within the teaching of grammar. Its main goal is to help learners comprehend and process grammatical features accurately and appropriately. The efects of Processing Instruction have been compared with other Instructional interventions. Overall, the results of these studies suggest that Processing Instruction is a very efective approach to grammar Instruction. The research database on Processing Instruction includes learners from a variety of first languages (Chinese, English, Italian, Korean, Japanese) and age groups (adults and school-age learners), covers diferent languages (English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, German, Arabic and Spanish) and diferent language families. The studies also addresses a variety of linguistic forms and structures (e.g. verbal and nominal morphology, passive forms, word order, etc.), thereby addressing diferent Processing problems. In this paper, the results of four empirical studies on the efects of Processing Instruction on the acquisition of English morphology and syntactic structures by Chinese L1 speakers will be presented. Practical implications of the research for the teaching of grammar to Chinese students will be highlighted.
James F. Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A self-paced reading (SPR) study of the effects of Processing Instruction on the L2 Processing of active and passive sentences:
Language Teaching Research, 2020Co-Authors: James F. Lee, Paul A. Malovrh, Stephen Doherty, Alecia NicholsAbstract:Recent research on the effects of Processing Instruction (PI) have incorporated online research methods in order to demonstrate that PI has effects on cognitive Processing behaviors as well as on a...
-
The Second Language Processing of Passives, Object Pronouns and Null Subjects: Processing Instruction Compared to Language Experience
Hispania, 2019Co-Authors: James F. LeeAbstract:The present study compared the performance of two groups of second language learners Processing three linguistic structures in Spanish. The linguistic targets were passives, object pronouns in OproVS sentences, and gender-cued null subjects in subordinate clauses. The primary differences between the two groups were language experience and an Instructional treatment. The group with greater language experience was enrolled in the last course of their Spanish major, the other group in the middle of their major coursework. The group with less language experience received Processing Instruction on passives. The scores of the greater language experience group were compared to the pretest and then posttest scores of the Processing Instruction group. Results demonstrated that greater language experience gave learners an advantage in Processing the linguistic targets when compared to the Processing Instruction group's pretest scores. Comparisons between the greater language experience group's scores with the Processing Instruction group's posttest scores showed that Processing Instruction provided a superior effect on passives, an equalizing effect on null subjects, and a non-effect on object pronouns. Experience counted more with object pronouns.
-
NATIVE AND NONNATIVE Processing OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SENTENCES: THE EFFECTS OF Processing Instruction ON THE ALLOCATION OF VISUAL ATTENTION
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2018Co-Authors: James F. Lee, Stephen DohertyAbstract:The present study compares native and nonnative Processing of Spanish active and passive sentences. The nonnative speakers were tested before and after receiving Processing Instruction on the Spanish passive. The native speakers were tested once and provide a baseline for comparisons. We measured accuracy and response time to select the correct response in a paired picture matching task. We used eye-tracking measures to capture Processing behaviors on both active and passive verb forms. We measured Processing using time to first fixation on the verb area of interest, mean first fixation duration, mean first pass time, and mean second pass time. The results revealed that Processing passive sentences comes at a cost to both native and nonnative speakers. After Instruction the nonnative speakers showed no significant differences with native speakers in accuracy and response time. Also, the nonnative speakers’ Processing behaviors became more nativelike but did not reach the native speaker level.
-
The milestones in twenty years of Processing Instruction research
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 2015Co-Authors: James F. LeeAbstract:AbstractVanPatten 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.
-
Processing Instruction on the Spanish passive with transfer-of-training effects to anaphoric and cataphoric reference contexts
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 2015Co-Authors: James F. LeeAbstract:AbstractTransfer-of-training effects with Processing Instruction have recently been reported in the literature. That is, L2 learners receive Processing Instruction on one particular linguistic item and, as a consequence of Instruction, learners' performance improves not only on the particular linguistic item but on other linguistic items as well. The present study examines Processing Instruction on the Spanish passive, the word order of which places the patient in the grammatical role of subject in sentence initial position and the agent as the object of a preposition in sentence final position. The purpose of the study is to determine whether learners transfer the training they receive on Processing the word order of passive sentences to their Processing of sentences with anaphoric reference, specifically, accusative case pronouns for which the word order is O
Bill Vanpatten - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Foundations of Processing Instruction
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 2015Co-Authors: Bill VanpattenAbstract:AbstractThis paper reviews six issues that are key to understanding Processing Instruction (PI): (1) the distinction between Processing and noticing; (2) the nature 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 enhancement, recasts, and dictoglosses. In so doing, the paper offers six summary statements that, together, form the foundations of PI.
-
explicit information grammatical sensitivity and the first noun principle a cross linguistic study in Processing Instruction
The Modern Language Journal, 2013Co-Authors: Bill Vanpatten, Erin Collopy, Joseph Edward Price, Stefanie Borst, Anthony QualinAbstract:This study presents the results of four experiments in the framework of Processing Instruction conducted with four language learner groups (Spanish, n = 43; German, n = 46; Russian, n = 44; and French, n = 48; discussed in that order). In each experiment, the Processing problem was held constant (the First-Noun Principle) although the structure was unique to the language. The independent variables were explicit information prior to treatment and grammatical sensitivity as measured by the Modern Language Aptitude Test. Two dependent measures were included: (a) trials-to-criterion (how long it took participants to begin Processing correctly) and (b) improvement over time (pretest/posttest). Results show that explicit information may be useful for the Processing of some structures but not others; however, explicit information is not necessary. Results also show that grammatical sensitivity does not significantly correlate with any of the measures under any conditions except for the German group that received explicit information. Our conclusion is that when instructed SLA is viewed as Processing, variables such as explicit information and grammatical sensitivity may not play the same role as when instructed SLA is viewed as rule learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
-
Transfer of training and Processing Instruction: From input to output
System, 2011Co-Authors: Bill Vanpatten, Onur UludagAbstract:Abstract In this paper we report the findings of an experiment to test whether training via Processing Instruction transfers to output tasks. Two groups of Turkish L1–English L2 learners participated: one that received Processing Instruction on passive structures and a control group that did not receive any Instruction on passives. A pre-test/multiple posttest design was used with three measures: ability to interpret passives correctly, ability to produce passives at the sentence level, ability to reconstruct a three sentence passage in which passives were embedded. Results showed that the Processing Instruction group made significant gains on all three measures. The control group made no gains. Our conclusion is that even though Processing Instruction is input oriented, its effects are not limited to input-oriented tasks.
-
The Role of Explicit Information in Instructed SLA: An On-Line Study with Processing Instruction and German Accusative Case Inflections.
Die Unterrichtspraxis Teaching German, 2009Co-Authors: Hillah Culman, Nicholas Henry, Bill VanpattenAbstract:The present study reports the findings of an experiment on the effects of explicit information on the learning of German case markings. Fifty-nine learners of first- and second-year German received computer-based Processing Instruction on German accusative case marking and word order. These learners were divided into two groups: one received explicit information on the nature and form of case marking in German prior to the treatment, and one group did not. We measured the effects of explicit information by tracking correct responses on the computer as participants made their way through the activities. Analyses revealed that explicit information had an effect: those who received explicit information began to correctly respond to stimulus sentences (i.e., began to correctly indicate who did what to whom) sooner than those who did not. These results contradict previous research and suggest a hidden role for explicit information within Processing Instruction.
-
Processing Instruction and Meaning-Based Output Instruction : A Response to Keating and Farley (2008)
Hispania, 2009Co-Authors: Bill Vanpatten, Jeffrey L. Farmer, Caleb L. ClardyAbstract:Research on Processing Instruction (PI) has yielded consistently positive results across a variety of measures. In addition, in comparison to other Instructional interventions, PI tends to yield superior results. The one difference is comparative research with Meaning-based Output Instruction (MOI) in which in a number of studies, MOI is seen to be as good as PI in terms of group performance on certain tasks. The present study is a partial replication of one such study: Keating and Farley (2008). We compared three groups-PI, MOI, and Control-on two measures using a pretest/posttest/delayed posttest design. Our results do not replicate Keating and Farley's and instead resemble more those of original research on PI and traditional Instruction (e.g., Van-Patten and Cadiemo, 1993). We discuss our findings in relation to the nature of MOI.
Hsin-ying Chen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Structured Input Activities in Processing Instruction
2012Co-Authors: Hsin-ying ChenAbstract:This study set out to investigate the roles of the two different types of structured input activities (SIA) in the framework of Processing Instruction (i.e. PI, a type of input-based grammar pedagogy package). It addresses some weaknesses of previous PI studies and begins to address several new issues in the PI research agenda. A classroom-based quasi-experiment was carried out to investigate the effectiveness of different types of input activities within PI: Referential and affective activities. Taiwanese primary school students were allocated into Instruction and control groups. A range of elicitation tests were employed to measure the impact of the interventions, including a grammaticality judgment test (GJT) with a time constraint, a gap-fill written test, a picture-based narration oral test, a structured conversation and a short written receptive vocabulary test.
-
The Roles of Structured Input Activities in Processing Instruction and the Kinds of Knowledge They Promote
Language Learning, 2011Co-Authors: Emma Marsden, Hsin-ying ChenAbstract:This study aimed to isolate the effects of the two input activities in Processing Instruction: referential activities, which force learners to focus on a form and its meaning, and affective activities, which contain exemplars of the target form and require learners to process sentence meaning. One hundred and twenty 12-year-old Taiwanese learners of English as a foreign language were assigned to one of four groups: Referential + Affective, Referential only, Affective only, or Control. The treatments were computer-based. Pretests, posttests, and delayed posttests, including a timed grammaticality judgment, a written gap-fill, an oral picture narration, and a short semistructured conversation, measured learning of the –ed past tense verb inflection. Findings suggested that referential activities were responsible for the learning gains observed, that affective activities did not provide additional benefits in terms of learning –ed, and that the gains observed displayed some broadly defined characteristics of explicit knowledge.
-
A classroom quasi-experimental study to explore Processing Instruction
2010Co-Authors: Hsin-ying ChenAbstract:Processing Instruction (VanPatten, 1996, 2002a, 2004) contains two types of input activity: Referential activities, which force learners to focus on a form and its meaning, and affective activities, which contain multiple exemplars of the target form but focus learners' attention on the meaning of the sentences in which the form is embedded. To date, these two types of PI activity have been treated as one pedagogical technique, and no study has been empirically conducted to investigate the Instructional impact of them individually. Furthermore, whether or not PI activities can promote learners’ implicit knowledge has not been addressed empirically. 120 12-year-old Taiwanese learners of L2 English were quasi-randomly assigned to four groups: Referential + Affective, Referential-only group, Affective-only and a Control. Pre, post and delayed post tests were administered to assess learning of the English 'ed' verb inflection. The measures included three tests aiming to elicit implicit knowledge: A timed grammaticality judgment test, an oral picture narration, and a short structured conversation. Following these tests, a self-report technique was employed to check whether or not learners drew on explicit knowledge. A gap-fill test without a time constraint and a written vocabulary test were also included to examine Instructional impact. Findings suggest that referential activities are responsible for the learning gains observed and that the gains are held for up to six weeks after completion of the intervention. However, the issues regarding the role of affective activities in vocabulary learning and PI’s impact on implicit knowledge need further study. An implication of this study is that the claims of previous PI studies regarding the causative factors for its effectiveness require more refined exposition.
Andrew P. Farley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The relative effects of Processing Instruction and meaning-based output Instruction on L2 acquisition of the English subjunctive
ELT Research Journal, 2012Co-Authors: Andrew P. Farley, Erhan AslanAbstract:This study investigates the impacts of an input-based Instruction (Processing Instruction, PI) and an output-based Instruction (meaning-based output Instruction, MOI) on the acquisition of the English present subjunctive form by Turkish EFL learners. There were three groups of participants involved in the study: (N=64). PI (n=19), MOI (n=23), and Control (n=22). The PI treatment consisted of structured input (SI) activities that involved sentence-level interpretation and production tasks whereas the MOI treatment involved structured output (SO) activities that required the participants to produce the subjunctive form to convey meaning. The improved performance of both Instructional groups was equal at the interpretation level; however, at the production level the MOI group performed significantly better than the PI group.
-
Processing Instruction and Dictogloss: A Study on Object Pronouns and Word Order in Spanish.
Foreign Language Annals, 2009Co-Authors: Bill Vanpatten, Daniela Inclezan, Hilda Salazar, Andrew P. FarleyAbstract:Abstract: In the current study, we present the findings of an experiment with 108 participants of Spanish as a second language in which we compared the effects of dictogloss (DG) and Processing Instruction (PI) and compared both sets of effects to a control group. Our findings do not support the results of a recent study, Qin (2008). In that study, DG and PI were found to be equally effective; however, we find that PI is superior overall to DG as an Instructional intervention, a finding much more in line with the original research on which Qin based her study (e.g., VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993). We trace differences in results to materials and assessment tasks in Qin's study, which departed significantly from previous research. Key words: dictogloss, first noun principle, Processing Instruction, Spanish object pronouns Language: Spanish Ever since the publication of VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), in which Processing Instruction (PI) was first researched and compared to traditional Instruction, a number of studies have appeared that have either attempted to replicate VanPatten and Cadierno's study or have researched intervening variables (e.g., Alien, 2000; Benati, 2001, 2004, 2005; Cadierno, 1995; Parley, 2004; Keating & Parley, 2008; MorganShort & Wood Bowden, 2006; Qin, 2008; Sanz & Morgan-Short, 2004; VanPatten & Oikkenon, 1996; VanPatten & Sanz, 1995; VanPatten & Wong, 2004). Regardless of the particular comparative outcomes within each study (e.g., whether or not the effects of PI are the same as those of another intervention or focus on grammatical form), what is consistent has been that PI always results in a positive outcome (i.e., significant gains) in both the ability of learners to interpret language and in their ability to produce it in restricted contexts (but see VanPatten & Sanz, 1995, as well as Sanz & Morgan-Short, 2004, for performance on communicative tasks). The present study turns its attention to a new strand of comparative research involving PI: comparing its outcomes with those of dictogloss (DG). We present the findings of a study in which we basically replicate the findings of VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), in contradistinction to a recently published study by Qin (2008). Background Within contemporary second language acquisition research, the effect of Instruction on the formal properties of language has been debated ever since Krashen launched his famous acquisition-learning distinction (e.g., Krashen, 1982). Krashen's claim was that Instruction on formal properties did not affect acquisition (the creation of an implicit linguistic system) but did affect what he called learning (the creation of an explicit linguistic system). Positions about the relative effects of Instruction included those that were in alignment with Krashen's position (e.g., Truscott, 1998) and those that aligned themselves with the idea that Instruction did have some kind of effect (e.g., Ellis, 1994; Long, 1983; Pica, 1983). In VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), the researchers questioned the basic either/or nature of the question and instead suggested that the question be redirected toward asking (1) what kinds of processes Instruction might want to affect and (2) what kind of Instruction that might be. They proposed the idea that if acquisition is input-dependent and that if we understand something about how learners interpret language (e.g., what their input Processing strategies are and how they make formmeaning connections during comprehension), we might be able to see effects of Instruction. They thus proposed to research the effects of what is now known as Processing Instruction (PI). The aim of PI is to alter the Processing strategies that learners take to the task of comprehension; that is, if learners are comprehending and Processing sentences incorrectly in the input, then the aim of PI is to correct this Processing. Better Processing ought to lead to better acquisition. …
-
Processing Instruction, communicative value, and ecological validity: A response to collentine's defense
Hispania, 2002Co-Authors: Andrew P. FarleyAbstract:According to VanPatten (1996), Processing Instruction involves three main steps: (1) providing learners with an explanation of a form's meaning; (2) giving them information about a Processing problem (or problems) that may hinder their noticing and/or Processing of the form; and 3) having learners carry out activities that contain structured input. This structured input is specifically crafted either to take advantage of existing L2 Processing strategies or to push learners to use more optimal strategies. Collentine's (1998) treatment materials are discussed in light of VanPatten's (1996) definition of PI and the four Processing problems (P1-P4) outlined in VanPatten (1997). Next, Collentine's understanding of communicative value is contrasted with VanPatten's (1985) original definition of the term. Finally, Collentine's comments concerning the ecological validity of PI are addressed.
-
Authentic Processing Instruction and the Spanish Subjunctive
Hispania, 2001Co-Authors: Andrew P. FarleyAbstract:Twenty-nine subjects enrolled in a fourth-semester Spanish course were assigned to one of two treatments: Processing Instruction and meaning-based output Instruction. The results show that Processing Instruction (PI) has an overall greater effect than meaning-based output Instruction (MOI) on how learners interpret and produce the Spanish subjunctive of doubt. MOI did not have nearly the effect on interpretation as PI. MOI did have a positive impact on what learners were able to produce, but this effect was no greater than the PI influence on production. These results emphasize the important role of input in second language acquisition and the benefits of Processing Instruction in particular. Although Collentine (1998) stated that most uses of the subjunctive do not lend themselves to PI, this study has shown that input can be structured in such a way that the subjunctive is more easily processed by L2 learners of Spanish.