Cover not available

In:Input Processing and Processing Instruction: The acquisition of Italian and Modern Standard Arabic
Alessandro G. Benati
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 11] 2021
► pp. 67–88

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 4
Structured input vs. traditional instruction on the acquisition of Italian gender agreement

Interpretation discourse-level tasks

Published online: 8 September 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.11.c4
Article outline
  • 4.1Introduction
  • 4.2Background
    • Measuring the effects of processing instruction on Italian gender agreement
    • Measuring the effects of processing instruction through different tasks
      • Sentence-level tasks
      • Discourse-level production tasks
      • Discourse-level interpretation tasks
    • Research measuring short and long-term effects for processing instruction
  • 4.3Motivation and research questions for the present study
  • 4.4Design
    • Participants
    • Target feature
    • Procedure
    • Instructional materials
      • Structured input activities
      • È bella
      • Traditional instruction
      • Control
      • Assessment tasks
  • 4.5Results
    • Guided recall of the dialogue-based discourse-level
      • Immediate effects
      • Delayed effects
    • Guided recall of the story-based discourse-level interpretation data
      • Immediate effects
      • Delayed effects
  • 4.6Discussion and conclusion
  • References
References (28)
References
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness 13, 67–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The effects of PI, TI and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benati, A., & Lee, J. (2008). Grammar Acquisition and Processing Instruction: Secondary And Cumulative Effects. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Processing instruction and discourse. Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benati, A., Lee, J., & Hikima, N. (2010). Exploring the effects of processing instruction on discourse-level interpretation tasks with the Japanese passive construction. In A. Benati & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 148–177). Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benati, A., & Batziou, M. (2017). The relative effects of isolated and combined structured-input and structured-output on the acquisition of English causative. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57, 265–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Discourse and long-term effects of isolated and combined structured-input and structured-output on the acquisition of English causative form. Language Awareness, 28, 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, A. C. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspectual value. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 119–141). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 805–823. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keating, G., & Farley, A. (2008). Processing instruction, meaning-based output instruction, and meaning-based drills: Impacts on classroom L2 acquisition of Spanish object pronouns. Hispania, 19, 639–650.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. 311–323). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasprowicz, R., & Marsden, E. (2017). Towards ecological validity in research into input-based practice: Form spotting can be as beneficial as form-meaning practice. Applied Linguistics, 39, 886–911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507–566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marsden, E., & Chen, H. Y. (2011). The roles of structured input activities in processing instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning, 61, 1058–1098. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56, 319–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Fernández, C. (2004). The long-term effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 273–289). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Farmer, J., & Clardy, C. (2009). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania, 92, 116–126.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazarand, H., & Farley, A. (2009). Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 557–575. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue