Beyond Experience and Belief (or, Waiting for the Evidence): A Reply to Leaver et al.‘s “Apples and Oranges“

Wong, Wynne; VanPatten, Bill

doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02180.x

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Leaver, Rifkin, and Shekhtman () took issue with Wong and VanPatten (), raising many objections about the applicability of their conclusions to the teaching of Russian. In Wong and VanPatten's () follow‐up to the response, the researchers challenged instructors of Russian to present empirical evidence that mechanical drills (i.e., Traditional Instruction, hereafter TI) are necessary for language acquisition, or that PI or other focus‐on‐form approaches would not work for Russian.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

In response to Leaver, Rifkin, and Shekhtman (2004), Wong and VanPatten (2004) challenged instructors of Russian to present evidence for the claim that mechanical drills (Traditional Instruction) were necessary for second language learning, and to demonstrate empirically the claim that Processing Instruction would not be an effective intervention for Russian. The current study compares the effects of the two instructional models for teaching the distinction between directional and locational expressions in Russian.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Processing Instruction and Russian: Further Evidence Is IN

Comer

deBenedette

2011

Foreign Language Annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Processing Instruction and Russian: Further Evidence is INIntroduction that there is no evidence from either a theoretical or an empirical standpoint that mechanical drills are necessary for language acquisition, regardless of the language being studied. In place of mechanical drills, Wong and VanPatten posit that focus-on-form instruction, and particularly one of its subsets, Processing Instruction (hereafter PI), can successfully replace mechanical drills in teaching L2 grammar. Leaver, Rifkin, and Shekhtman (2004) took issue with Wong and VanPatten (2003), raising many objections about the applicability of their conclusions to the teaching of Russian.In Wong and V -up to the response, the researchers challenged teachers of Russian to present empirical evidence that mechanical drills (i.e., traditional instruction, hereafter TI) are necessary for language acquisition, or that PI or other focus-on-form approaches would not work for Russian.The research study presented in this article is an attempt to do precisely that: the study compares the effects of TI and PI for learning a Russian syntactic construction involving directional versus location todestination] and at -location] distinction represents a similar learning challenge to the French causative faire construction featured in Wong and VanPatten (2003), although the nature of the processing problem is different in the two languages. Information) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Processing Instruction and Russian: Further 2 *Manuscript (No Author BackgroundThe Evidence for PI PI is an instructional intervention that seeks to alter certain faulty processing strategies that language learners exhibit, and VanPatten (2004) has formulated and explicated these faulty processing strategies in his theory of Input Processing. The first study to describe the effects of production of Spanish object pronouns in sentences with SVO and OVS word order. On this first noun of a sentence as the subject or agent, even if this was grammatically impossible.on learning to correctly interpret oral and written input involving Spanish pronouns, while the TI group followed the traditional progression of mechanical, meaningful and communicative drills found in the most popular textbook of Spanish in use at that time. Thus the TI group was focused entirely on producing forms, while the PI group did extensive work on interpretation of forms, including receiving explicit instruction about the processing problem involving the Spanish object pronouns and the First Noun Principle. In the post-test, the PI group exhibited greater improvement than the TI group on the interpretation tasks and made gains similar to the TI group in producing sentences with object pronouns, even though the PI group did not create a single sentence with this form during the treatment. The TI group...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing Instruction and Russian: Further Evidence Is IN

Comer

deBenedette

2011

Foreign Language Annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Introduction: Situating the concept of practice

DeKeyser

2007

Practice in a Second Language

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The case for dynamic exercise systems in language learning

Galloway

Bidoshi

2008

Computer Assisted Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most existing web-based language learning exercises may be termed 'static' in that their content is fixed; the sentences exist in the form in which the developer wrote them, and the scope of the exercise and the variety of interactions can only be expanded by manually adding to the existing stock. One solution to this problem is an application which generates its content in response to user specifications. We believe that a dynamic application is suitable for situations where long-term, large scale development of CALL materials is foreseen, as the flexibility and usability of the product far exceed what is available with conventional web-based exercises. In this paper, we will outline the reasons language instructors might consider a dynamic or semi-dynamic system as a sound technological investment of time and money, discuss the advantages of designing a dynamic system, and illustrate some of the pitfalls to avoid in beginning that process.

show abstract

Beyond Experience and Belief (or, Waiting for the Evidence): A Reply to Leaver et al.‘s “Apples and Oranges“

Cited by 4 publications

References 27 publications

Processing Instruction and Russian: Further Evidence Is IN

Processing Instruction and Russian: Further Evidence Is IN

Introduction: Situating the concept of practice

The case for dynamic exercise systems in language learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About