ry-vanpatten-cadierno-1993

VanPatten and Cadierno (1993)

Explicit Instructions and Input Processing

Remember when Schachter (1974) responded to Selinker (1972) and wrote that there’s more to SLA than just production? VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) is a research continuation of the notion that L2 learning is most successful both in production and comprehension when L2 learners get processed instruction and not just traditional instruction.


 * Traditional instruction** explains and provides output practice of a grammatical point only.


 * Processsing instruction** involves explanation and practice processing input data while using learner strategies in input processing to determine what the actual explicit instruction will be.

Here is the difference between both types of instruction using a “diagram in a table” of sorts.

(production) ||
 * ~ input ||~ --> ||~ intake ||~ --> ||~ developing system ||~ --> ||~ output
 * || processing instruction ||  ||   ||   || traditional instruction ||   ||
 * || focused practice ||  ||   ||   || focused practice ||   ||
 * || focused practice ||  ||   ||   || focused practice ||   ||
 * || focused practice ||  ||   ||   || focused practice ||   ||

(see pp. 226, 227 in article)

It seems clear that the theoretical base for this paper is compatible with a Chomskyian approach to L2 utterances (production), and these, along with comprehension are two aspects of SLA that should be taught. The L2 learner must convert input into intake to develop their L2 knowledge system.

The article details the how six second-year university-level Spanish classes at the University of Illinois were taught with processing instruction and traditional instruction. In the end, the study showed that traditional and processing instruction resulted in statistically similar and significant increases in students L2=Spanish production. However, for interpretation, the processing instruction students performed almost twice as well.

These are the key conclusions of the authors of this paper:
 * 1) “Traditional grammar presentation and practice do not enhance how learners process input and therefore do not provide intake for the developing system. Instead, traditional instruction results in a different knowledge system.” (p. 238)
 * 2) “Explicit instruction should first seek to make changes in the developing system via a focus on input and only afterward should instruction provide opportunities for developing productive abilities.”
 * 3) “Learners can and often do use each others’ output in the classroom as input.
 * 4) The authors do not advocate what Savignon (1983) called “forms without function”, but they do suggest “tasks that are structured around particular grammatical points where real messages are communicated and learners attend to both content and form.” (p. 240)