A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense

By A. Benati. 2001

160 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/134110a5be03b9ae8791ea4b44ad1ca373b23893

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

What Gets Processed in Processing Instruction? A Commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing Instruction: An Update” (2002, background): “…to the word order differences that make the comprehension tests difficult for a native speaker of English.4 We cannot agree, therefore, with Benati (2001) when he says that “processing instruction does not aim at raising learners’ consciousness about grammatical form” or that “the ultimate…”
The Effects of Instruction on Linguistic Development in Spanish Heritage Language Speakers (2009, methodology): “In VanPatten and Cadierno (1993b), although there were no statistical differences between PI and TI, only the TI group improved relative to a control group.”
Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference? (2006, methodology): “Using an input-processing approach (VanPatten, 1996; VanPatten and Cadierno, 1993), Benati (2001) investigated the acquisition of the future tense in Italian by three groups of university students.”
Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (2009, background): “A number of Processing Instruction studies have had learners work with structured input tasks (or ‘pushed input’; Izumi, 2003) and produced evidence to show that these students perform better on interpretation tasks and as well as on production tasks as students who have worked solely on output task”
PROCESSING INSTRUCTION AND MEANINGFUL OUTPUT-BASED INSTRUCTION:: Effects on Second Language Development (2006, methodology): “…research has focused on one particular type of input-based instruction: processing instruction ~PI!+ This research has supported the efficacy of PI ~Benati, 2001, 2005; Cadierno, We thank Ron Leow, Alison Mackey, and Cristina Sanz for their continual support and valuable input throughout the…”
The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning—output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense (2005, methodology): “which adopted the same design, have been conducted in various languages and linguistic features (Buck, 2000 on the acquisition of the present continuous in English; Cadierno, 1995 on Spanish past-tense verb morphology (preterite tense); Cheng, 1995 on Spanish copular verbs (ser and estar); VanPatten”
AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE (2005, background): “…of enhanced rulelearning in relation to those forms+ DeKeyser et al+ ~2002! pulled together the results of more recent studies ~Allen, 2000; Benati, 2001; Cheng, 2002; Collentine, 1998; Farley, 2001!, all of which substantiated that output-based treatments promoted learners to significant…”
The Evidence is IN: Drills are OUT (2003, background): “, PI is superior to TI): preterit tense in Spanish (Cadierno, 1995); future tense in Italian (Benati, 2001); the copular verb estar in Spanish (Cheng, 1995 and 2002); the French causative (VanPatten & Wong, 2003). • Can PI be used effectively with any structure or form? The answer, so far, is yes. I”