Chapter-7-Processing-Instruction-and-Structured-InputPPT优秀课件

1、1Chapter 7Processing Instruction and Structured Input2In this chapter we explore:lThe nature of input processinglProcessing instruction: grammar instruction that has structured input at its corelResearch on processing instruction that demonstrates its effectivenesslA set of guidelines for developing

2、 structured input activities3Input processinglTraditional instruction consisting of drills in which learner output is manipulated and the instruction is divorced from meaning or communication is not an effective method for enhancing language acquisition.lWhat is needed is a new pedagogy of grammar i

3、nstruction that takes as its point of departure what we know about how grammatical forms and structures are acquired.lThis pedagogy needs to work with input and with the processes learners use to get data from that input.4Input processinglOf concern is input processing, how learners initially percei

4、ve and process linguistic data in the language they hear.lIn input processing, learners might encounter their first problems in dealing with the properties of the new language.lWe must come to some understanding of what input processing looks like.5Intake from inputlInput processing is concerned wit

5、h those psycholinguistic strategies and mechanisms by which learners derive intake from input.lIntake refers to the linguistic data in the input that learners attend to and hold in working memory during online comprehension.6Form lResearch on input processing attempts to explain how learners get for

6、m from input while their primary attention is on meaning.lForm here is defined as surface features of language, although input processing is also relevant to syntax.7The most complete modellVanPatten (1996,2003b) presents the most complete model of input processing in SLA.lThe role of working memory

7、 is important in this model since some of the principles are predicated on a limited capacity for processing.lHumans develop mechanisms that allow them to selectively attend to incoming stimuli. Without such mechanisms, there would be informational overload.8VanPattens PrincipleslPrinciple 1(P1). Th

8、e Primacy of Meaning Principle. Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form.P1a. The Primacy of Content Words Principle. Learners process content words in the input before anything else.P1b. The Lexical Preference Principle. Learners will tend to rely on lexical items as oppos

9、ed to grammatical form to get meaning when both encode the same semantic information.Example: I went to the store yesterday.9VanPattens Principles continued P1c. The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle. Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they proce

10、ss redundant meaningful forms.Examples: I went to the store yesterday. (redundant past)I went to the store. (non-redundant past)10Principle 1clIn this principle, “more”, “less”, and “nonmeaningful” refer to the communicative value that a grammatical feature contributes to overall sentence meaning.lC

11、ommunicative value refers to the meaning that a form contributes to overall sentence meaning and is based on two features.+/- inherent semantic value+/- redundancy11Communicative valuelA form that can be classified as having inherent semantic value and is not a redundant feature of language, will te

12、nd to have high communicative value.lFor example:In English verbal morphology, -ing tends to have high communicative value: 1) It has inherent semantic value because it encodes progressive aspect (i.e., -ing = in progress)2) -ing tends to be high in communicative value because it is seldom redundant

13、 in naturally occurring discourse since no lexical information in the utterance co-occurs to provide cues to aspect.12Nature of communicative valuelIn order to grasp the semantic notion of “in progress” the L2 learner of English must process the verbal inflection ing in the input.lThe nature of comm

14、unicative value is important for input processing.lThe more communicative value a form has, the more likely it is to get processed and made available in the intake data for acquisition (P1d).13ConverselylThe less communicative value a form has, the more likely learners are to “skip” it in the input.

15、lFor learners to process forms of little or no communicative value in the input, they must be able to comprehend an utterance such that the act of comprehension does not tie up all their attentional resources.14VanPattens Principles continuedP1d. The Meaning-before-Nonmeaning Principle. Learners are

16、 more likely to process meaningful grammatical forms before nonmeaningful forms irrespective of redundancy.Example:Los gatos negros.(masculine non-meaningful)(plural “s” meaningful)15VanPattens Principles continued P1e. The Availability of Resources Principle. For learners to process either redundan

17、t meaningful grammatical forms or non-meaningful forms, the processing of overall sentential meaning must not drain available processing resources (i.e. no overload of information) .16VanPattens Principles continued P1f. The Sentence Location Principle. Learners tend to process items in sentence ini

18、tial position before those in final position and those in medial position. For example, learners are much more likely to pick up question words and their syntax than object pronouns or the subjunctive, which tends to occur inside the sentence.Example: Hablo espaol.Yo quiero que t hables espaol.17An

19、example in FrenchExample: Jean fait promener le chien Marie. (*French causative)Students: *John walks the dog for Mary.Correct: John makes Mary walk the dog.(*Students will incorrectly encode “Jean” as the subject of the second verb and thus delivering erroneous intake to their developing linguistic

20、 systems.)18VanPattens Principles continuedlPrinciple 2. The First Noun Principle. Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject or agent.Example: A Juan no le gusta helado.(*Students will incorrectly encode “Juan” as the subject of the sentence and t

21、hus delivering erroneous intake to their developing linguistic systems.)19VanPattens Principles continuedP2a. The Lexical Semantics Principle. Learners may rely on lexical semantics, where possible, instead of word order to interpret sentences.(see previous examples)20Word orderlWord order is import

22、ant in Input processing.lP2, the first noun principle, may have important effects on the acquisition of a language that does not follow strict subject-verb-object (SVO) word order.21Erroneous inputlResearch has shown that learners do indeed encode such pronouns and noun phrases as subjects, thus del

23、ivering erroneous input to their developing linguistic systems.lThey think that Juan is the subject.lIt is not that meaning is gotten elsewhere; it is that meaning is not gotten at all or is gotten wrong.lThe form-meaning connections are not only filtered, they are altered.22VanPattens Principles co

24、ntinued P2b. The Event Probabilities Principle. Learners may rely on event probabilities (i.e. whats more likely to happen), where possible, instead of word order to interpret sentences. For example, fluent English speakers would assign the semantic role of agent to the hunger and the role of patien

25、t to the lion: The lion was killed by the hunter. Research has shown that learners of English as an L2 incorrectly interpret it as: The lion killed the hunter. 23VanPattens Principles continuedP2c. The Contextual Constraint Principle. Learners may rely less on the First Noun Principle if preceding c

26、ontext constrains the possible interpretation of a clause or sentence.(see previous example)24SummarylResearch on input processing attempts to describe:What linguistic data learners attend to during comprehensionWhich ones they do not attend toWhat grammatical roles learners assign to nounsHow posit

27、ion in an utterance influences what gets processed.lIntake is grammatical information as it relates to meaning that learners have comprehended (or think they have comprehended.)25A reminderlAs a reminder, input processing is but one set of processes related to acquisition.lThat learners derive some

28、kind of intake from the input does not mean that the data contained in the intake automatically make their way into the developing mental representation of the L2 in the learners head (i.e., intake does not equal acquisition).26Rethinking grammar instruction: Structured inputlWe now have some idea o

29、f what learners are doing with input when they are asked to comprehend it.lWe can begin to develop a new kind of grammar instruction-one that will guide and focus learners attention when they process input.27Processing instructionlProcessing instruction consists of three basic components:Learners ar

30、e given information about a linguistic structure or form.Learners are informed about a particular processing strategy that may negatively affect their picking up of the form or structure during comprehension.Learners are pushed to process the form or structure during activities with structured input

31、- input that is manipulated in particular ways to push learners to become dependent on form and structured to get meaning.28Processing-oriented grammar instructionInputIntakeDeveloping SystemOutputProcessing MechanismsFocused Practice29An example of relating processing strategies to instruction: Ver

32、b morphologylWe turn to activities that focus learners attention on verb endings; the goal is for learners to use these morphological endings to comprehend tense rather than solely rely on lexical items.lAfter learners receive a brief explanation of how past-tense endings work, they might first prac

33、tice attaching the concept of past time to verb forms in an activity such as the following.30Listening for time referenceListen to each sentence. Indicate whether the action occurred last week or is part of a set of actions oriented toward the present.wJohn talked on the phone.wMary helped her mothe

34、r.wRobert studies for two hours.wSam watched TV.1.Lori visits her parents.31Structuring the inputlNote that only the very ending encodes tense in the input sentence.lLexical terms and discourse that would indicate a time frame are not present, thereby encouraging learners to attend to the grammatica

35、l markers for tense.lThe input has been structured.32An example of relating processing strategies to instruction: Adjective agreementlThis time we focus on the following strategy: P1d. Learners are more likely to process meaningful grammatical forms before nonmeaningful forms, irrespective of redund

36、ancy.lSome features of language do not have inherent semantic or communicative value.33For examplelIn the Romance languages, adjectives must agree in number and gender with the nouns they modify, but this feature of grammar contributes little or nothing to the meaning of the utterance in most cases.

37、lIn the following Spanish-language activity, learners attention is directed toward proper adjective form by a task in which the adjective endings must be attended to.34Who is it?Listen to each sentence in which a person is described. Determine which person is being described and then indicate whethe

38、r you agree or disagree.David LettermanMadonnawEs dinmica. (Shes dynamic.)wEs comprensivo. (Hes understanding.)1.Es reservada. (Shes reserved.)35lRemember that learners apply a first-noun strategy to determine subjects and objects of sentences (“who did what to whom”)lWith the French causative, this

39、 leads to misinterpretation and nonacquisition.lIn this activity, learners are pushed to process correctly; to be sure this happens, sentences with the noncausative faire (faire du ski, “to ski”) that involve two people are also included.An example of relating processing strategies to instruction: T

40、he French causative36Who is performing?Listen to each sentence. Then answer the question.wWho cleans the room?wWho packs the bags?wTeachers script Read each sentence ONCE. After each sentence, ask for an answer.wClaude fait nettoyer la chambre Richard. (Structured)1.Marc fait les valises pour Jean.3

41、7Research on processing instructionlThere has been ongoing research regarding the effectiveness of processing instruction.lAn important part of this research has examined the relative effects of processing instruction versus those of traditional instruction.lThe study that launched this research age

42、nda is VanPatten and Cadierno (1993).lIt is the most frequently cited study and has been the impetus for a number of replication studies.38Research questionslVanPatten and Cadierno sought to answer the following research questions:Does altering the way in which learners process input have an effect

43、on their developing systems?If there is an effect, is it limited solely to processing more input or does instruction in input also have an effect on output?If there is an effect, is it the same effect that traditional instruction has (assuming an effect for the latter)?39Focus of the researchlVanPat

44、ten and Cadierno compared three groups of learners:A processing instruction group (number=27)A traditional instruction group (number=26)A control group (number=27)lThe processing group received instruction based along the lines presented earlier.lThe focus was word order and object pronouns in Spani

45、sh.40Who did whatlIn the processing treatment, learners first received activities with right or wrong answers (“Select the picture that best goes with what you hear”) followed by activities in which they offered opinions.lIn the traditional group, learners received involving a typical explanation of

46、 object pronouns and the complete paradigms of the forms.lThe control group did not receive instruction on the target structure and instead read an essay and discussed it in class.41AssessmentlAssessment consisted of two tests: a sentence-level interpretation test and a sentence-level production tes

47、t.lThese were administered as a pretest, an immediate posttest, a two-week delayed posttest, and a four-week delayed posttest. 42Assessment continuedlThe interpretation test consisted of ten target items and ten distractors.lThe production test consisted of five items with five distractors.lThe inte

48、rpretation group was based on an activity performed by the processing group (“Select the picture that best goes with what you hear.”)lThe production test was based on an activity the traditional group performed (“Complete the sentence based on the pictures you see.”)43Results!lThe pretests yielded n

49、o differences among the groups on the two tests prior to treatment.lIn the posttesting phase, the processing group made significant gains on the interpretation test whereas the traditional and control groups did not.lOn the production test, both the traditional and processing groups made significant

50、 gains but were not significantly different from each other.lThe control group did not make significant gains.44ConclusionslAltering the way learners process input could alter their developing systems.lThe effects of processing instruction are not limited to processing but also show up on production

51、 measures.lThe effects of processing instruction are different from those of traditional instruction.45Two for onelBy being pushed to process form and meaning simultaneously, learners with processing instruction not only could process better but also could access their newfound knowledge to produce

52、a structure that never produced during the treatment stage.lMembers of the traditional group learner to do a task, while the members of the processing group actually experienced a change in their underlying knowledge that allowed them to perform on different kinds of tasks.46Areas for future researc

53、hlAre the effects of processing instruction (PI) generalizable to other structures?lAre the effects of PI due to different explicit information?lAre the effects of PI observable with different assessment tasks?lAre the effects of PI different from the effects of other types of instruction?lDo the ef

54、fects of PI hold over time?47Are the effects of P1 generalizable to other structures?lCadierno (1995) replicated the VanPatten and Cadierno study using the Spanish preterite (past) tense as the target structure.lAgain contrasting a control group, a traditional instruction (TI) group, and a processin

55、g instruction (PI) group, Cadierno measured the effects of treatment via two measures:An interpretation test (Is the sentence youre hearing present, past, or future?)A production test (writing sentences in the past)48ResultslCadiernos results matched those of VanPatten and Cadierno exactlylOn the in

56、terpretation test, the PI group improved significantly, but the other two groups did not.lOn the production test, both the PI and TI groups improved significantly but were not different from each other.49Chengs studylIn her dissertation, Cheng (1995) conducted a study with ser and estar, the two maj

57、or copular verbs in Spanish.lShe compared a control, a processing, and a traditional group in the use of copular verbs with adjectives as the target.lHer results mirrored those of the original VanPatten and Cadierno study.50Farleys studylIn another study, Farley (2001a) demonstrated the effects of P

58、I on the Spanish subjunctive with noun clauses.lIn his study he showed that participants who received PI made significant gains in both interpretation and production abilities with the subjunctive both in form and use.51Bucks dissertationlBuck (2000) investigated the relative effects of PI and TI in

59、 the acquisition of the present continuous (versus the present progressive) in English by native speakers of Spanish.l“Bill is smoking a pipe” versus “Bill smokes a pipe.”lHe results indicated greater gains for the processing group that were maintained over time on the interpretation test.52VanPatte

60、n and WonglIn one other study, VanPatten and Wong (2003) demonstrated that PI was superior to TI with the French causative.lThey compared a control, a processing, and a traditional group and measured outcomes with an interpretation and a production test.lTheir results were the same as the results of