1

An experimental approach to investigating grammar pedagogy: Processing Instruction

Emma Marsden, University of Southampton

Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Leeds, 13-15 September 2001

  1. Summary of the study
  2. Rationale
  3. Theoretical & Pedagogical Framework:
  • Input Processing
  • Processing Instruction & Examples
  • A Broader Framework
  1. Relevance for the UK Classroom
  2. Proposed Methods
  • Concerns
  1. Conclusion

1Summary of the Study

This paper discusses one approach to investigating the effects of introducing a new activity type into the classroom. First, the theoretical framework (Input Processing) and the pedagogical framework (Processing Instruction) are presented. Their potential relevance for the UK MFLs classroom follows. I will then present my plans and concerns for the fieldwork, discussing some of the benefits and problems involved in adopting an experimental approach to study the effects of innovation in the languages’ classroom.

2Rationale

Since the introduction of ‘languages for all’ in secondary education, language teaching at lower levels has, to a large extent, concentrated on giving learners pre-fabricated chunks of language in an effort to encourage accurate and fluent communication during the early stages. Process studies (e.g. Mitchell & Martin 1997 and Mitchell & Hogg 2001, this symposium) have shown that there is currently a mixture of grammar teaching methodologies being used, whose roots can be seen in behaviourist, communicative language teaching and grammar-translation approaches, as well as individual teacher craft theories. However, there is a widely felt dissatisfaction with many learners’ ability to take control of the language system in order to create their own language in target-like ways. It is generally thought that one of the keys to progression is for learners to develop a verb system. This study will compare 2 ways of improving learners’ ability to understand and use a selection of French verb inflections in the present and perfect tenses.

The issue of how to teach what grammar is a very lively area of debate in the international literature. There is a rich source of theories and pedagogical ideas, many of which deserve to be investigated to see what they have to offer the UK context. One such area is called Processing Instruction, which I describe in detail in the first section. This study aims to compare Processing Instruction (PI) with the input activities learners more typically receive in the UK classroom. Both instructional types will focus on meaning in an attempt to increase all learners’ form – meaning connections.

3Input Processing and Processing Instruction

I will now present some of the work done so far in the area of Input Processing (IP) and its pedagogical implications: Processing Instruction (PI). My main aim here is to present them as argued by its proponents.

The theoretical framework: Input Processing

Input processing literature always shows the following diagram, offering it as a model of language learning central to the theoretical and pedagogical claims being made:

It is widely recognised that meaning-bearing input (the first stage of this model) is one of, if not the vital component in Second Language Acquisition (e.g. Krashen 1985, Gass 1989).

However, it seems that the type of input we provide and how this affects learning is a less developed research area than output-type studies, which include interactionist frameworks, some negative evidence studies and learner strategy investigations that look at the productive skills (though see Terrell 1991). There is considerable international literature on the type of production tasks we ask learners to do (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain 2001). Reviews of ‘type-of-instruction studies’ (Norris & Ortega 2000, Spada 1997) also show this bias towards output based investigations. Such studies aim to affect the final stage of the process, improving learners’ productive control of the language, usually with the aim of affecting the rest of the system.

Input Processing theory assigns a vital role to the process which converts input to intake. Input processing can be viewed from a variety of perspectives e.g. (Gass 1988Chaudron 1985). VanPatten’s model of Input Processing (1990, 1994, 1995 & 1996) is situated within cognitive theories of attention, consciousness and language processing in terms of making form-meaning connections. This can be seen in a complex integrated model (VanPatten 1996, p43) and is derived from the 4 Principles discussed next. Two features of this model are noteworthy at this stage: Universal Grammar contributes to the assigning of grammatical roles to the data available in the input and it is recognised that the developing system can feed back into the ‘input to intake’ process. This model constitutes another attempt to combine cognitive and UG approaches to SLA theory, reflecting an increasing trend in the field (Myles 2000).

It is frequently emphasised in the literature, though not in this model, that this framework is not necessarily incompatible with output-based theories e.g. Swain (1993), Schmidt & Frota (1986), and as such does not advocate a replacement for output practice. It is acknowledged, for example, that as well as enhancing fluency, improving output may constitute improved auto-input or that if learners notice gaps in their interlanguage this may affect the ‘input to intake’ process.

Principles of Input Processing

These principles (VanPatten 1996) are used to predict the processing strategies learners are likely to use and also to explain interlanguage phenomena. The pedagogical implications of these principles serve as a guide for choosing the linguistic focus and design of instructional material.

The principles most relevant to the learning of French verb inflections are one, two and four.

1)Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form

a)Learners process content words in the input before anything else

b)Learners prefer processing lexical items to grammatical items (e.g. morphology) for the same semantic information

c)Learners prefer processing “more meaningful” morphology before “less” or “non-meaningful” morphology

2)For learners to process form that is not meaningful, they must be able to process informational or communicative content at no (or little) cost to attention

3)Learners possess a default strategy that assigns the role of agent (or subject) to the first noun (phrase) they encounter in a sentence / utterance. This is called the first noun strategy.

a)The first noun strategy may be overridden by lexical semantics and event probabilities

b)Learners will adopt other processing strategies for grammatical role assignment only after their developing system has incorporated other cues (e.g. case marking, acoustic stress).

4)Learners first process elements in sentence / utterance initial position best.

a)Learners process elements in final position before elements in medial position

Difficulty of acquiring verbal inflection.

Verb inflections have low communicative value and VanPatten’s principles would predict that French verb morphology will be very late to be processed. Principle 1 would suggest that the subject pronoun or proper noun will be used by learners to interpret meaning as it is more salient for them than verbal inflections. This would seem to be supported by the fact that given the chance to correct pronoun + verb combinations (e.g. nous a mangé) learners, without exception, choose to change the inflection to suit the pronoun, and never consider that the verb ending could dictate a change of pronoun (evidence from Hampshire Best Practice Projects). Principle 2 implies that learners will not begin to pay attention to verbal inflection until all other elements of the sentence are easily processed. Principle 4 would suggest that in SV word order, learners will process the subject before the verb (and, by extension, perhaps that the verb stems may receive more attention than the suffixed inflections).

These principles could be applied in the same way to learner processing of verb tense morphology, interrogative forms and negation.

Written and spoken systems

In French the different written and spoken systems cause problems for learners (Harley 1989). At this stage I plan to assess the impact of the instruction on both written and spoken interlanguage (interpreting and production). Guidelines in Lee & VanPatten (1995) suggest that both written and oral input is needed to cater for different learner preferences. How far this guideline takes into account that French oral and written input actually provides apparently contradictory evidence for learners is not clear (e.g. in spoken language there are only 3 present tense er endings, in written there are 5). So far, morphologically focussed PI studies have been carried out with more transparent and communicatively meaningful inflection systems such as Italian and Spanish.

The materials and pre and post tests will focus on a small selection of pairs of structures within the present and perfect tenses (shown in appendix 2). Some materials will also focus on the syntax of negatives and interrogatives.

Guidelines for Producing and Working with Processing Instruction Materials

One of the attractive aspects of VanPatten’s work is that he provides practicable implications for the classroom. Although some of these implications may not stem from a single well-formulated theoretical framework, they have intuitive appeal and their roots can usually be explored by turning to various cognitive paradigms, where further theoretical and empirical foundations can be found (discussed only very briefly in this paper).

PI (VanPatten & Cadierno 1993) aims to provide learners with more efficient strategies for making form-meaning connections from the data available to them in oral and written input. This could be seen to complement learner strategy type approaches in that it aims to improve language, at a micro level, by making input processing strategies explicit to the learner. The model then predicts that more intake will be available for the developing system, which may result in improved output.

VanPatten’s guidelines are as follows (Lee & VanPatten 1995). I have added the information in parentheses:

i) Teach only one thing at a time (Cognitive psychology/information processing models)

ii) Keep meaning in focus (Functional approaches)

iii) Learners must do something with the input (Functional / interactionist frameworks)

iv) Use both oral and written input (Learning styles literature) and move from sentences to connected discourse (Cognitive psychology / information processing & attention models)

v) Keep the psycholinguistic processing mechanisms in mind (Processability & attention literature).

The 3 components of PI

Examples of the 3 types of materials in an IP package are given in appendix 1: explicit grammar presentation, referential activities and affective activities. These examples are all listening activities, though obviously reading activities would also be used. Their aim is to increase learners’ form-meaning connection for the ‘ons’ verb inflection, for present tense er verbs. This follows the guidelines above in that ‘one thing at a time’ is taught, and, although this is limited in linguistic range and could be construed as mechanical practice, it must be remembered that such activities are intended to constitute just one strand of the instruction.

Explicit Grammar Presentation

This is a fairly traditional presentation of the grammar point in focus before the learners are given practice opportunities. A distinguishing feature is that it also includes a specific statement about the type of errors that are normally made by learners, the reason why and an example. (VanPatten1996) suggests that such instruction has a role in raising learners’ sensitivity to features in the input and in creating an awareness of the ineffective processing strategies that should be avoided. It is claimed that increased comprehension of input may develop language competence (rather than the ability to repeat linear patterns). VanPatten (1990)VanPatten (1994) suggest that although the process of noticing the linguistic features may be conscious, the formulation of abstract rules does not have to be conscious nor does the end product have to be explicit metalinguistic knowledge. In any case (VanPatten & Oikkenon 1996) found the practice element to be the main causal factor, not the explicit grammar presentation. However, the combination of the grammar explanation with the input processing practice (described later) was the most effective in improving both interpretation and production skills (i.e. more than grammar explanation alone and more than the grammar explanation plus output practice).

Referential and Affective Practice Activities (appendix 1)

The first practice activities are discrete item ‘referential activities’, which focus learners’ attention on specific features of the language. The ‘affective activities’ then force learners to use the specific feature of the language in order to carry out some more ‘realistic / meaningful’ task.

Meaning oriented?

All tasks focus learners’ attention on the linguistic target in the aural and written input in such a way that they are forced to make form-meaning connections. Skehan (1998) and others may argue that ‘trapping’ linguistic structures as seen in the examples is impossible within genuinely meaning-oriented learning. However, Skehan’s interpretation is much more concerned with the extent to which the tasks are realistic/life-like. VanPatten and associates appear to consider meaning oriented to refer to the avoidance of mechanical practice of formS (Long 1991) which does not force learners to show they have understood the form-meaning connection.

Something borrowed and something new: Links with other theoretical frameworks

  • Perhaps the most obvious link is with the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt 1990) – learners must notice the form-meaning connection and they must be aware of making this connection. The guidelines of PI imply that some aspects of explicit learning are essential and that implicit absorption of certain aspects of the language are unlikely to occur, as evidenced in the immersion studies (Harley1989). IP moves beyond simply raising learners’ awareness by enhancing elements of the input e.g. Sharwood Smith (1993), but insists that we have to force L2 learners to process certain form-meaning connections.
  • Input Processing has some similarities with certain perceptual saliency approaches. For example the Operating Principles described in Slobin (1979) and Anderson & Shirai (1994) also claim that perception, and therefore acquisition of L2 features are dependent on their position in utterance and their communicative value.

The task materials have a surface resemblance to behaviourist type instruction i.e. pattern practice with the reward of communication to reinforce the behaviour. The difference being that learners do not produce the patterns in PI. In addition it is an essential element of PI that each task item requires the processing of meaning, and cannot be successfully completed by the mechanical repetition of patterns. (Whether PI activities actually achieve this is another matter – see Wong (2001) where learners can just listen out for a meaningless cue to interpret the causative faire.)

The evidence base for the 4 Processing Principles seems to have some roots in error analysis. The processing principles by which learners operate are based on observations of the errors that learners generally make e.g. that they interpret the first noun phrase as the subject (Ervin-Tripp 1974, Heilenman & McDonald 1993). These errors are believed to reflect their processing system.

  • Studies from cognitive psychology (Lee & Magill, 1983 and Lauer, Streby, & Battig, 1976) suggest that exposing learners to items juxtaposed with contrasting items helps the learning process. Input Processing studies usually ensure that learners are forced to recognise the defining features of the structure i.e. what is it about feature x that makes it have a different function to feature y? There is a tendency in UK MFL teaching to present material of one type together and then move onto another. For example, we present our hobbies: je joue, je fais, j’écoute, je regarde. Then next lesson we may get learners to identify the same vocabulary but with il or elle. PI would suggest that if we want to help learners unpack j’ from the chunk j’aime jouer, then we should compare it explicitly and directly with il / elle / proper noun forms. Learners need to be forced to process the differences between the two forms in order to carry out some task. The idea of contrasting small details of the language structure, one at a time, seems to be at the heart of PI but is not explicit in the literature.

This section has begun to present Input Processing theory in the context of a broader framework. It appears that aspects of the model, Principles and Guidelines take their foundations from a range of arguments and theoretical bases.

4Relevance to UK classroom

Processing Instruction may have particular relevance for the UK classroom. Five possibilities are presented here.

Under-representation of Input Processing Skills in Classes

Given the emphasis most models of language learning give to comprehensible input, listening and reading are perhaps an under-represented skill area in UK classrooms. Process studies have shown that one of the main activities in UK classes are short question and answer role plays, either teacher-led or in pairs. The five classes discussed in Mitchell & Martin (1997) have listening activities on average 7.7% of class time and reading 4.1% - giving an average total of ‘pure input’ time of 11.8%. Of course, this discounts the input provided by the whole class speaking (62.4%) and paired speaking activities (7.6%), but it can be fairly safely assumed that these activities were practising fairly routinised patterns and did not force learners to notice the minutiae of verbal inflection. The new KS3 schemes of work also have a bias towards production activities. We may think we already have such activities (as an interview with teacher 2 from the current study clearly demonstrated) but an analysis of textbook and teacher-led listening activities and typical reading activities shows that learners’ attention is focussed on lexical items, developing a semantic level of processing (Swain 1995).

How to Rehabilitate Grammar Teaching?

The current rehabilitation of grammar into MFL teaching in UK schools, in response to both a top down influence (QCA, 2000, DfEE 1999) and to calls from teachers, raises many questions about how this new trend will actually manifest itself. Already all 3 examination boards include an activity based on a verb paradigm / focus on formS activity in their sample GCSE papers for 2003. The new GCSE specifications state that the 10% awarded for accuracy and application of knowledge about language will not be tested in the listening and reading components, reinforcing the idea that listening and reading are not used for grammar instruction. The extent to which these changes will washback into the classroom are yet to be seen. A broad re-adoption of thinly disguised grammar translation methods would not be desirable as these were seen to result in poor oral fluency and appealed only to an elite with an interest in the abstract rules of language (Hawkins 1996). So how do we ensure that there is a focus on form without this turning into a focus on formS (Long 1991)?