Processing Instruction effects on moment-by-moment language processing in Spanish Second Language Acquisition
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15648/cedotic.2.2023.3773Keywords:
Computer Assisted Language Learning, Second Language Acquisition, Input Processing, Processing Instruction, and Self-Paced ReadingAbstract
Due to a lack of research between the fields of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) (Ortega, 2017; Zeigler et al., 2017; Parmaxi & Zaphiris, 2017), the present study seeks to combine these two fields by looking at Input Processing through the use of Processing Instruction (VanPatten, 2015) when implemented on the computer. With a total of 62 participants, 3rd year Spanish language learners from a high school in Florida performed a Self-Paced Reading (SPR) test after going through structured input. This study will compare the data from a pretest and posttest SPR to see if the information learned on the structured input was able to have an overall effect on the minute-to-minute way learners process input. Results showed that participants from the referential activities group were able to show exhibit a change in their processing. Therefore, when creating SLA activities on the computer incorporating referential type activities will help learners change the way they process the input.
Author Biography
Tiffany Robayna, Samford University
Birmingham, Alabama, native Tiffany Robayna received her B.S. degree in Spanish Education from Anderson University. She then taught high school Spanish for 13 years in Virginia, Indiana, Alabama and Florida. While she was in Alabama, she earned a master’s degree in Teaching Languages with a dual emphasis in Spanish and ESL from the University of Southern Mississippi. She earned a Ph.D. in Spanish Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition from Florida State University. She taught there and at Auburn University before coming to Samford. Her research interests include Second Language Acquisition, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Processing Instruction, Code-switching and Bilingualism.
References
Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language learning, 34(4), 77-95.
Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching & researching: Computer-assisted language learning. Routledge.
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.
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 179-193.
Chapelle, C. (2007). Technology and second language acquisition. Annual review of applied linguistics, 27, 98-114.
Doughty, C. (1987). Relating Second-Language Acquisition Theory to CALL Research and Application. In Smith, F. (Ed.). Modern Media in Foreign Language Education:
Theory and Implementation (133-168). Illinois: National Textbook Company.
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W.J.B., (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496-518.
Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 277-305.
Hegelheimer, V., & Chapelle, C. (2000). Methodilogical Issues in Research on Learner-Computer Interactions in CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 41.
Henry, N. (2015). Morphosyntactic Processing, Cue Interaction, and the effects of Instruction: An investigation of processing instruction and the acquisition of case markings in L2 German. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics, (20-49). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (Eds.). (2014). Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kroll J. F., and Stewart E. (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. Routledge.
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (2007). Comparing three modes of delivering Processing Instruction on preterite/imperfect distinction and negative informal commands in Spanish, with
Jorge Aguilar-Sánchez and Erin M. McNulty. Equinox Publishing, 73-98.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Levy, M., Hubbard, P., Stockwell, G., & Colpaert, J. (Eds.). (2015). Research challenges in CALL, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 1-6.
Ortega, L. (2017). New CALL-SLA Research Interfaces for the 21st Century: Towards Equitable Multilingualism. Calico Journal, 34(3), 285.
Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2017). Web 2.0 in Computer-Assisted Language Learning: a research synthesis and implications for instructional design and educational practice.
Interactive Learning Environments, 25(6), 704-716.
Sanz, C., & Morgan‐Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer‐assisted study. Language Learning, 54(1), 35-78.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Principal components and factor analysis. Using multivariate statistics, 4(1), 582-633.
Talamas, A., Kroll, J., Dufour, R. (1999) From form to meaning: Stages in the acquisition of second language vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 2(1), 45-58.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 91-109.
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J., Borst, S., & Qualin, A. (2013). Explicit Information, Grammatical Sensitivity, and the First‐Noun Principle: A Cross‐Linguistic Study in
Processing Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 506-527.
Ziegler, N., Meurers, D., Rebuschat, P., Ruiz, S., Moreno‐Vega, J., Chinkina, M., ... & Grey, S. (2017). Interdisciplinary research at the intersection of CALL, NLP, and SLA:
Methodological implications from an input enhancement project. Language Learning.
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cuál estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista.
- Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).
