Search

Previous research has suggested that L2 learners often use non-target processing strategies to understand sentences, but that these strategies can be changed through targeted instruction that directs their attention to different linguistic forms or structures. The present study explores the effects of pretraining 'blocking' practice—a novel type of training designed to help learners inhibit the application of a strict word-order based processing strategy—prior to receiving a traditional Structured Input (SI) training focused on OVS word order and accusative case markers in German. The study compares three groups of third-semester German learners who completed three different activities in one training session: (1) SI with blocking practice (+BP), (2) SI preceded by explicit information (+EI), and (3) SI without EI or blocking practice (−EI). The effects of training were measured by sentence-level interpretation and production tasks administered as a pretest, posttest, and four-week delayed posttest. Learner performance was also assessed during training. Results in all assessment measures indicated that EI was most effective, but that blocking practice lent a slight advantage over −EI groups during and after training. These results are discussed in the context of studies on processing instruction and learned attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study investigated the effects of processing instruction (PI) on the acquisition of accusative case markers in German, focusing on whether PI influences learners' online processing behaviors. Third and fourth semester L1 English-L2 German learners were divided into two groups: a traditional instruction (TI) group and a PI group. Participants completed offline sentence interpretation and production tasks, as well as a self-paced reading (SPR) task, which provides a detailed investigation of how PI alters processing strategies. Results showed that the PI group outperformed the TI group on the sentence interpretation task and matched their performance on the production task. The SPR task revealed that, in some conditions, the PI group showed increased attention to and processing of accusative case markers after training, while the TI group did not. The results provide some support for the claim that PI is effective because it alters learners' processing strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The acquisition of verbal morphology presents challenges for many second language (L2) learners, in part because they do not readily process those forms during sentence comprehension. Instead, L2 learners rely on lexical‐semantic cues (e.g., temporal adverbs and explicit subjects). This study investigated the role of task‐essential training in changing learners’ processing tendencies and tested whether such changes were related to increased performance with the L2 Spanish present, preterite, and future tenses and first‐ and third‐person morphology. The experiment compared a no‐training control group to three groups of learners who completed a multisession task‐essential training following the principles of structured input (SI). Groups varied in the type of feedback they received. Results of a cue‐reliance assessment indicated that each SI group relied significantly more on verbal inflections after training while the control group did not. Furthermore, the extent to which groups relied on verbal inflections on posttest measures correlated moderately to strongly with performance on interpretation and written production measures. Implications are discussed for input processing, learned attention, and pedagogy, in particular the impact of feedback on cue reliance and learning outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the role of prosodic cues and explicit information (EI) in the acquisition of German accusative case markers. We compared 4 groups of 3rd-semester learners (low intermediate level) who completed 1 of 4 Processing Instruction (PI) treatments that manipulated the presence or absence of EI and focused prosody. The results showed that, when training included EI or prosodic cues, the groups improved on comprehension and production tasks in an immediate posttest. Four weeks after training, the groups sustained gains on the comprehension task, but not on the production task. Participants who did not receive EI or prosody only showed improvement on the comprehension task in the immediate posttest and did not sustain these gains. These findings replicate previous findings on the role of EI in PI, showing an advantage for EI with the target form (e.g., Henry, Culman, & VanPatten, 2009). Moreover, the results suggest that prosodic cues help learners process morphosyntactic forms, and that they can enhance grammar instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the effects of Processing Instruction (PI) on the acquisition of grammatical gender and gender-marked pronouns in German. PI was compared to Traditional Instruction, i.e. a traditional, vocabulary-oriented approach using color cues (TI) and a Categorization and Memorization task (CM). The results of an immediate posttest showed that the PI group outperformed both TI and CM with respect to gender assignment on both a gender selection task and a writing task. The PI group also scored higher and responded faster than the TI and CM groups on a comprehension task that required accurate processing of gender-marked pronouns. However, differences between the three groups were not sustained on delayed posttests. These results extend the findings of previous research on PI (e.g. Benati, 2004) by showing that PI can be applied to target forms that are low in communicative value and must be learned item-by-item like grammatical gender in German. Results also lend support to psycholinguistic research that suggests that second language (L2) learners have difficulty acquiring grammatical gender because they do not process nouns together with gender information (Arnon & Ramscar, 2012). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]