Wynne Wong

Alertness, Orientation, and Detection: The Conceptualization of Attentional Functions in SLA

This paper critically examines Tomlin and Villas (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention and Leows (1998) attempt to operationalize their model. Our position is that whereas Tomlin and Villa have moved the attention research forward by describing the nature of attentional processes and by pointing out that detection is a critical function of SLA, their claim that alertness and orientation are not necessary for detection to occur is currently unsupportable and does not reflect the complex nature of SLA. We argue that Leows efforts to provide empirical support for this model fall short of that goal. Additionally, we cast doubt on Tomlin and Villas position that awareness is not required for the detection of L2 data by arguing that the issue of awareness as well as the role of attentional functions must be viewed from a more interactive perspective in terms of the nature of the task, the nature of the linguistic item, and individual learner differences. We conclude by proposing research orientations that may help advance the discussion on this topic.

Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication

Contents: Part I: Foundations. B. VanPatten, Input Processing in SLA. W. Wong, The Nature of Processing Instruction. P. Lightbown, Commentary: What to Teach? How to Teach? M. Harrington, Commentary: Input Processing as a Theory of Processing Input. Part II: Processing Instruction Versus Other Types of Instruction. B. VanPatten, W. Wong, Processing Instruction and the French Causative: Another Replication. A.C. Cheng, Processing Instruction and Spanish Ser and Estar: Forms With Semantic-Aspectual Values. A.P. Farley, The Relative Effects of Processing Instruction and Meaning-Based Output Instruction. J. Collentine, Commentary: Where PI Research Has Been and Where It Should Be Going. Part III: The Roles of Structured Input and Explicit Information. W. Wong, Processing Instruction in French: The Roles of Explicit Information and Structured Input. A. Benati, The Effects of Structured Input Activities and Explicit Information on the Acquisition of the Italian Future Tense. A.P. Farley, Processing Instruction and the Spanish Subjunctive: Is Explicit Information Needed? C. Sanz, Computer Delivered Implicit Versus Explicit Feedback in Processing Instruction. C.J. Doughty, Commentary: When PI Is Focus on Form It Is Very, Very Good, but When It Is Focus on Forms... Part IV: Long-Term Effects of PI. B. VanPatten, C. Fernandez, The Long-Term Effects of Processing Instruction. Part V: Final Commentaries. S. Carroll, Some Comments on Input Processing and Processing Instruction. J.F. Lee, On the Generalizability, Limits, and Potential Future Directions of Processing Instruction Research. B. VanPatten, Several Reflections on Why There Is Good Reason to Continue Researching the Effects of Processing Instruction.

THE EFFECTS OF PROCESSING INSTRUCTION AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION ON L2 ONLINE PROCESSING OF THE CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN FRENCH

While previous research has shown that processing instruction (PI) can more effectively facilitate the acquisition of target structures than traditional drill practice, the processing mechanism of PI has not been adequately examined because most assessment tasks have been offline. Using eye-tracking, this two-experiment study compared changes in processing patterns between two types of training: PI and traditional instruction (TI) on intermediate-level L2 learners’ acquisition of the French causative. Both experiments used a pretraining/posttraining design involving a dichotomous scene selection eye-tracking task to measure eye-movement patterns and accuracy in picture selection while participants processed auditory sentences. Neither group received explicit information (EI) in Experiment 1 while both experimental groups in Experiment 2 received EI before processing sentences. Results of Experiment 1 revealed the PI group had significantly higher accuracy scores than the TI group. A change in eye-movement pattern was also observed after training for the PI group but not for the TI group. In Experiment 2, when both groups received EI, PI subjects were again significantly more accurate than TI subjects, but both groups’ accuracy scores were not reliably higher than subjects in the PI and TI groups in Experiment 1 who did not receive EI. Eye-movement patterns in Experiment 2 showed that both TI and PI started to shift their gaze to the correct picture at the same point as PI subjects did in Experiment 1. This suggests that EI helped the TI group start entertaining the correct picture as a possible response sooner but the EI did not help the PI group process the target structure sooner than the TI group.