Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues

Hossein Hashemnezhad, Sanaz Khalili Zangalani

Abstract


Input Processing (IP) proposed by VanPatten (1993), was innovated based on Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis. In IP model, principles are stated that describe how learners either miss grammatical markers in the input or how they get them wrong (VanPatten, 2002b). Based on this model, learners process input for meaning before form. Processing Instruction (PI), an explicit focus on form that is informed by the model of IP, is a practical solution to IP model. The goal of PI is to help L2 learners derive richer intake from input by having them engage in structured input activities that push them away from the strategies they normally use to make form-meaning connections (Wong, 2004). This article intends to study  the definitions of IP and PI as well the issues of IP and PI, including the principles of IP,  features and goal of PI, and input used in PI (Structured input activities), and then to introduce difference between the terms IP and PI.

 


Keywords


Input processing, processing instruction, Structured Input activities

Full Text:

PDF

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(2), 95-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136216880100500202

Buck, M. (2006). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English progressive aspect. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 24 (43), 77-95.

Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition research: How does it help teachers?. ELT Journal, 47(1), 3-11.

Ellis, R. (2001). Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Farley, A. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289- 299. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3657760

Farley, A. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 147–172). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Karacaer, Z. (2003). The role of processing instruction: A study on English causatives. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross cultural perspective (39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sanz, C. & VanPatten, B. (1998). On input processing, processing instruction, and the nature of replication tasks: A response to M. R. Salaberry. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 263–273.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011943

VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar instruction for the acquisition rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 433-450.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2000). Processing instruction as form-meaning connections: Issues in theory and research. In J. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (43-68). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

VanPatten, B. (2002a). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803.

VanPatten, B. (2002b). Processing the content of input processing and processing instruction research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson and Harrington. Language Learning, 52, 825-831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00203

VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. Boston: McGraw Hill.

VanPatten, B. (2004a). Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

VanPatten, B. (2004b). Several reflections on why there is good reason to continue researching the effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten, (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary (325-335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01944.x

Wong, W. & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are out. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 403-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02123.x

Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in french: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Yazıcı, Ç. İ. (2007). A study of the effects of processing instruction on the development of English wh- questions used by Turkish EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Çukurova, Adana- Turkey.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.2n.1p.23

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2020 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.