Band 53, Heft 2 - Special Issue: Processing instruction: New insights after twenty years of theory, research and application

This 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.

VanPatten 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.

This experimental study explores immediate and re-exposure effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of Japanese passive forms as measured by sentence-level and discourse-level tasks. The passive construction in Japanese is affected by learners' use of the First Noun Strategy. Participants were English native speakers and were randomly assigned to one of three groups (processing instruction, processing instruction and re-exposure, and one control group), with the aim of measuring discourse-level and re-exposure effects. Two sentence-level tasks (interpretation and production), and one discourse level task (interpretation) were used in this experiment. The main findings from the study show that L2 learners receiving processing instruction not only improved in their ability to interpret and produce the target feature at sentence level, but they can also use the target forms to interpret discourse. Learners receiving re-exposure to the processing instruction treatment further improve their performance on both sentence-level and discourse-level tasks in an immediate and delayed post-tests battery.

This study investigates the effects of token item frequency in Structured Input activities on both a primary target form (Spanish accusative clitics) and a secondary target form (Spanish dative clitics). Participants included 460 adult learners enrolled in a beginning-level Spanish language course and they were exposed to either 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, or 140 target form tokens. This study included a pretest, immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest measuring interpretation and production of both primary and secondary target forms. Findings reveal that primary form interpretation effects across all frequencies, however, production findings present themselves with the 60 and 80 token groups only. Secondary form interpretation findings reveal themselves across all frequency levels with the exception of the lowest frequency investigated (40 tokens) and secondary form production mirror those found in previous studies on the same forms. As such, we discuss the theoretical and methodological ramifications of these findings as well as directions for future research.

This study examines the effects of input-oriented instruction and instruction that involves cycles of input plus output via three learning conditions with discourse-level input: (1) an input-oriented task in the form of a structured input reading activity, (2) a reading activity with comprehension questions, and (3) an input plus output-oriented task in the form of a text reconstruction activity, on the learning of the French causative structure. Results revealed that participants who engaged in the structured input reading activity performed significantly better than those in the other two learning conditions on both an interpretation and a production task.

Transfer-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 pro VS and to sentences with gender-cued, null subject cataphoric reference. Results show that all learners benefitted from instruction on processing the passive but that only some learners transferred the training to anaphoric and cataphoric reference contexts.

The current study considered effects of PI (explicit information and practice) in two populations: older (age 60+) and young adults (age 19–27), all of whom were late English/Spanish bilinguals. Twenty-one participants completed a computer-based lesson on Latin morphosyntax, namely the assignment of the thematic roles agent and patient . Treatment consisted of a vocabulary lesson, an interactive pre-practice grammar explanation, and input-based task-essential practice (Loschky and Bley-Vroman 1993: 123–163) that followed PI principles (VanPatten 2004). Interpretation, production, and grammaticality judgment tests were used as pre, immediate post, and delayed posttests. Additionally, a grammar test was administered immediately following the grammar lesson (but before practice). Results show that young adults benefit more than older adults from explicit instruction alone and maintain this advantage in interpretation tasks after practice. Crucially, though, practice eliminated some age effects, as the young adults' original advantage was not present on immediate posttests of grammaticality judgment or production, nor was it maintained on any delayed posttest, largely due to a decrease in young adults' accuracy from immediate to delayed posttest. Results are discussed in terms of pedagogical implications of PI practice for different populations and the idea of the flipped classroom .

The present study investigates the effects of Processing Instruction on two different age groups and the role that cognitive task demands might play in the results generated by Processing Instruction. This study includes school-age children and adult native speakers of German learning English as a foreign language – a language combination not previously investigated within the Processing Instruction and individual differences research paradigm. The present study investigates directly whether two different age groups will benefit equally from Processing Instruction in altering their reliance on lexical temporal indicators and redirecting their attention to verb forms on Processing Instruction activities with different cognitive demands. The grammatical feature chosen for this study is the English past simple tense marking tested on both interpretation and production measures. The results from this study provide further evidence that the Processing Instruction is an effective instructional treatment in helping school-age children and adult L2 learners to make accurate form-meaning connections. The results from the first sentence-level interpretation task and the production task showed that Processing Instruction has positive and equal effects on both age groups (school-age learners and adults). The positive effects of instruction were maintained over the delayed post-test for both age groups who made similar gains on the immediate post-test. The results from the second (cognitively more complex) sentence-level interpretation task indicated that the adults made greater gains than school-age learners. However, both groups retained the positive effects of instruction over time. The difference in gains between the two age groups on the second sentence-level interpretation task can be explained in terms of cognitive processing load.

The commentary takes the form of reflections occasioned by the debate carried out in the various contributions to this volume as also the related presentations and discussions that took place at the Symposium on Processing Instruction at the University of Greenwich in September, 2013. Rather than review each contribution the debate is be placed within a historical perspective and focus is on the changing relationship between two types of professional: a) those who seek to extend our understanding of second language acquisition and b) those whose main aim is to assist language instructors by applying insights from theoretical research and, by so doing, provide their profession with a modern scientific foundation. It is about the relationship between the ‘understanders’, on the one hand, and the ‘helpers’ on the other. The interaction between Input Processing Theory (IP)– the theory – and Processing Instruction (PI) – the application – provides an ideal background for such a discussion.